Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfBG0d5Oj3c
On the BBC today Labour peer Lord West is asking for 9/11 to be taught in schools so that people don’t go away with the conspiracy theories splattered around the web. š š š š Ho, ho, ho.
They taught us at school that Cecil Rhodes was a good man who explored Africa and staked out Rhodesia for his queen. They did not teach that he stole the land from the people living there with guns over spears funded by the Rothschild family.
Maybe they should make it part of religious studies, up there with the moment Jane Standley of the BBC prophesied the Collapse of the Wall of Jericho before it happened…
You shouldn’t make me laugh over such a serious subject KOWN. It’s not good for my broken left clavicle, you know the one that shook and broke all the other bones in my body till I fell crumpled in my own disintegrated molecules. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Yes Religious Studies!
Definitely something fishy about the way that wall collapse, did you see it? I heard they found Nano-Ark of the Covenant in the rubble.
Don’t joke about the clavicle, that’s how Spock from Star Trek used to disable the bad guys. Do you remember? He would reach out and pinch his thumb and index finger on their collar bone and they would instantly collapse. We used to try it at school, never worked though.
If you put the finger on mine at the moment I would definitely collapse. I’d collapse before you touched it in fact.
The ancient and legendary village of Gotham (Nottinghamshire) was renowned for its wise men, who always turned out not to be so wise. In Batman Gotham is a city based on New York and run by corrupt people. Can’t even think where Bill Finger got that idea! However the more I ponder it the more I realise NY is the modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Instead of just turning the inhabitants to salt He’s doing the same to buildings. I can see where novelists get their ideas now.
New evidence continues to appear that JFK was murdered by a government conspiracy managed by the CIA. Some new evidence is furnished in the new third edition of Peter Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace. Janney, the son of a high-ranking CIA official, knew some of the people involved.
I am told that children in school here in the U.S. continue to be taught the Warren Commission fairy tale that JFK was murdered by the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.
“I am told that children in school here in the U.S. continue to be taught the Warren Commission fairy tale that JFK was murdered by the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.”
It figures. Looks like a global problem. Those in power write the history books.
Lee Oswald wax the only person involved in the death of John Kennedy, try looking at the factual evidence instead of wishful thinking and fantasies. It was Oswald’s rifle, his wife testified to that fact, he brought it to work that morning in a package in his work colleagues car. His palm print was on the stock, he was the last person seen on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, three people on the floor directly below heard the shots and the cartridges been ejected. He wax the only person to flee the building. He went to his lodgings changed clothes and left with his pistol. Several witnesses seen him shoot officer Tippit, he hid in a Picture House and drew the gun when offices went to arrest him. He constantly contradicted himself under questioning. His brother Robert himself states he is completely satisfied Lee did the deed and knew that as soon as went to visit him. The real fairy tale comes from the bangers and rockets of the conspiracy fantasises from your ilk. In 50+ years no one from the conspiracy brigade provided any credible evidence of worth who else did the deed and virtually no two theories are the same. Jokers the lot of you!
Have you read Janney’s book? He and his family knew many of the CIA players.
@ Keith William Hendry January 8, 2017 at 16:40
Lee Harvey Oswald was Military Intelligence; he not only did not fire a shot, he tried his utmost (along with other Intel, including his friend Tippet) to stop the plot.
Even a Congressional Committee found there had been a conspiracy, but didn’t name the conspirators. People called to be answer to the Committee died like flies shortly before they were due to testify.
Waste of time, I suspect, but read ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’ by Belzer and Wayne; ‘Me And Lee’ by Judyth Vary Baker, ‘Dr. Mary’s Monkey’ by Haslam, and learn a thing or two.
You almost certainly believe that the Yanks landed on the Moon, that Pearl Harbor was an ‘unexpected attack’, that the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ LIE actually occurred, and that a guy on dialysis in a cave with a laptop was responsible for 9/11.
But don’t feel bad! At least you give us old-timers a giggle!
I suggest you subscribe to a periodical that fits your apparent level, like https://www.beano.com/subscribe
That way, you can have a laugh, as well as us.
I am not sure if this is the phenomena you refer to, but see FAQ answer to number 33 on her website.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/short/FAQ.html
I am please to see that you rate Richard D Hall. He has interviews with Judy Wood on his website.
He’s also done a lot of work on the Madeleine McCann case.
Yes John Goss – he made an excellent job on that, as he does in all the areas he invesigates. Did my link to Judy’s FAQs (33) answer your question?
Interested to know if you have any thoughts on the George Webb you tube series ‘where is braverman?’
“Did my link to Judyās FAQs (33) answer your question?”
Sadly not. If there was no high heat it would make all these testimonies and photographic evidence wrong. So certainly in this area I must disagree with Judy Wood. As a former toolmaker I am aware of what kind of high furnace temperatures are needed to make steel glow white hot. But thank you for explaining what her thoughts are on this.
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots
Why was a transit instrument used on WTC7 specifically, and at what time was it applied? Anyone know? I’ve only encountered a few, passing references to this instrument, so authoritative references would be appreciated.
The Holy Grail being its output logs, of course… I shouldn’t get my hopes up.
Looks like reports of a transit instrument being used stem from this quote by Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden:
There’s a discussion about it here …..
https://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/wtc-7-fema-report-and-nist-prelim-report-what-about-pre-collapse-leaning-and-the-transit/
…… particularly about why NIST never mentioned it.
Node, brilliant; thank you.
Node, that seems an excellent site you linked to. One of the comments links to this:
http://jay-911.blogspot.co.uk/
which collects and makes searchable a large collection of testimony transcripts. Its “Reference Links” collection looks very good, too.
Incidentally, I had a glance at the diagrams of Building 7 on the site of that university group in Alaska (I think). It looked like a right pig’s ear. It’s remarkable that it came down so close to symmetrically because there was little symmetry in the design. Columns dotted about, seemingly almost randomly. Beams running here, there and everywhere, it looked like afterthoughts tacked onto afterthoughts. It looked like they’d stacked the absolute maximum of floor area onto the available site. It didn’t offend my sense of engineering elegance quite as much as the principle of the PWR, but in its own way was even more horrible.
Resident ŠŃŃŠ°Šŗ writes on the Never Trust a Man who does not wear a Waistcoat thread: “anyone can look at your [i.e. my] twitter account to see you are pushing a petition from the Larouche organisation.”
First of all I hardly ever use Twitter. Secondly it does not matter to me what organisation is asking for a proper investigation into the events of 9/11. An investigation is necessary so I sign petitions providing I mostly agree with them. I would have thought you might welcome an investigation into the death of your cousin and all the other people wantonly murdered by persons unknown. Perhaps not. Shame.
“The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.”
Craig, you seem to be unaware of the case of the 59-story story Citicorp building was secretly retrofitted at night over the course of several months in 1978 without the knowledge of tenants, the general public, or the media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ekNosnieQ
In light of that, it’s hardly “laughable” to consider that those WTC buildings could have been rigged prior to 9/11
There was an unprecedented power down in the South Tower the weekend before 9/11 …. final preparations? CC TV and security door locks were disabled. Here’s an interview with IT specialist Scott Forbes who’s evidence was ignored by the 9/11 commission.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.co.uk/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html
To save Kempe the trouble, here’s the unconvincing ‘official’ denial of the significance of this evidence.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html
The corroboration of Scott Forbes’ evidence by Gary Corbett pretty well proves there was a power down. The link to his interview in Node’s secont link does not work. However here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZtMlJDXu-Y
Apologies. I was aware of the Scott Forbes interview and Googled the above link. I’ve just noticed that this is based on a short telephone conversation. Here’s the more interesting email interview (conducted through a series of instant messaging and e-mails) I was looking for :
http://killtown.blogspot.co.uk/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html
Scott Forbes saw an aircraft from a distance going into the South Tower. One of his colleagues saw the first plane. So if planes did fly into the WTC twin towers how come pilots for 9/11 truth have freedon of information that at least one of the planes was still flying after the crash?
Even if ‘planes’ or other flying objects did hit the Towers, it does not mean they were the alleged Boeings.
The ‘Black Box’ info provided to investigators of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon certainly showed that whatever flying object it was recording did approach the Pentagon, it also showed that at all times it was too high to have struck the Pentagon (the video explaining this is somewhere on Pilots for 911 website).
Other interesting facts were all four alleged hijacked aircraft had very few alleged ‘passengers’; that these alleged ‘passengers’ were very high in people associated with Government agencies of some kind or other, and all four ‘aircraft’ were lost to radar for brief periods, whilst in the vicinity of military bases (shades of Northwoods).
Two of them weren’t even scheduled to fly that day; and an airline employee who was some kind of airline buff found one of the so-called hijacked aircraft was still in commercial use long after 9/11!
So many questions Paul. So few answers.
Then there was the provably staged pictures of the cab with a light pole stuck through the window. The guy’s wife worked for a government agency (FBI, I think) and the guy’s story about where it happened was esily disproved by investigators (as well as the impossibility of a light pole crashing through the windscreen, without leaving even scratches on the bonnet).
Although the cab driver never changed his story, he did say he was just a little guy, and he didn’t want to get involved (or some such wording). And he was well advised to continue lying; if he told the truth, it would show the whole Pentagon thing was staged – something the PTB could not allow. He would have been ‘Brown Bread’, like Barry Jennings and many others.
Two pages of comment here. Not much in line with the official view.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t9779.html
Perhaps the dynamic duo can point out where all the experienced pilots have gone wrong this time. š
One of things I have a problem understanding is the plane shaped holes in the towers, while I’m 75% convinced that actual planes hit the towers but the symmetry of the hole shapes doesn’t make sense to me.
Planes constructed of mostly aluminium cutting through 14″ square, 5/8″ thick steel columns is not possible. Like you John I’m an engineer (Refrigeration Eng.) so I have a fairly good understanding of the physics. Your experience as a Toolmaker would give you a very good understanding of the behaviour of the materials involved.
One of the most common counter arguments put forward to the “aluninium can’t cut steel” argument is “water can cut steel” of course what they don’t know or don’t say is that when water is used to cut hard materials like steel or granite it is in a focused high pressure jet and carrying an abrasive like industrial diamond.
The other argument is that it is the velocity of the planes which enables them to cut through the beams, of course if this were the case then they could make armour piercing shells from aluminium, far cheaper than depleted uranium.
So back to plane shaped holes, the only explanation I can come up with is that pre-planted charges in the shape of a plane were detonated at the moment of impact. Not an easy thing to do and to be honest I can’t think of a reason for doing it, as the mere fact of planes hitting the towers would surely have been enough for the required spectacle.
I’d be very interested in your thoughts.
According to structural engineer Astaneh-Asl, the steel used in the perimeters of the Twin Towers was both thinner and more brittle than the standard A36 structural steel used in most buildings;
http://911-engineers.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html
– As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. “This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced,” he says.
– The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a “bearing wall” system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings’ columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as “yield strength”) in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible ā and therefore more brittle ā than the type traditionally used in such buildings.
– As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building’s exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.
– The structural innovations meant the developers saved money because they could use less steel, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl.
– Would a traditional structure have done better? Mr. Astaneh-Asl and his team made another computer model in which they altered the design of the north tower’s structure to make it more consistent with what the researcher calls standard engineering-design practice. Then he ran the same simulated plane into the structure in the same place it hit on September 11, 2001.
– In that scenario, the airplane’s wings are torn off, and therefore kept out of the building, when they hit the outer wall, while the fuselage still pierces the wall. “When it gets inside, there’s not very much fuel,” he says. Government reports found that it was not the damage from the planes, but the subsequent fires that weakened the steel and caused the buildings’ collapse.
– Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he cannot be certain whether a more-traditional building would have survived the smaller fire that would have followed because he is not an expert on fires. Even so, he argues, if the World Trade Center towers had been designed “using the codes and traditional systems, the building most likely would have survived ā it most likely would not have collapsed.”
It took three months to weld 200 strengthening plates into the 59 storey Citicorps Center, to do the same to all 11770 columns in each tower of the WTC would take 14 years. Even if you were to employ ten times the people it’s still nearly eighteen months and how would you get so many people in and out of the buildings every night unnoticed?
Kempe, it’s way past your bedtime.
Go to sleep.
Read your comment again in the morning.
Then say “D’oh!”
Am I missing something here? Is Kempe being dead-pan sarcastic or has he confused his arse with his elbow?
Flemlad, did you discover the Citicorp building retrofit from my comment about it a few pages back? That’s the first time I’ve ever seen it referenced by a demolition theorist.
After the toppling part of the South Tower had started its fall instead of following the path of least resistance, the way it was falling, it suddenly changed its direction of fall.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/
I do not need to explain further because the above blogger has done it for me. But just to be sure that the South Tower started falling outward before it was brought back in by explosives you can watch it for yourself in this compilation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
Now watch this building collapse which shows how the South Tower should have fallen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
Notice too the amount of rubble for such a small building. So where did the twin towers go?
Remember there were 5 or 6 basement levels; also the concrete was pulverised and ended up all over Manhattan.
With normal demolitions, they do not pulverise all the concrete, as it would create a horrible mess all around the area, which would need to be cleaned up. When you consider the steel that was shipped out to China, and the considerable amount buried at Fresh Kills Landfill, there’s not much unaccounted for:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
‘…According to FEMA, [for what their word is worth] more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.
Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ
Hugo Nue Schnitzer’s Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ
Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ
Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ …’
Paul, thanks for correcting John Goss. Sadly, I doubt it’ll have any long-term effect. Before accepting his conclusions about angular momentum, please consider this:
Q – What imparted angular momentum to the top section of WTC2 in the first place?
A – An imbalance in the upward forces (ie. torque) from the structure beneath.
Q – What could have altered the angular momentum of the top section of WTC2 shortly after collapse began?
A – Forces (ie. torque) from the structure beneath.
Following Richard Gage’s refutation of the NIST account of the demolition of Building 7 many more engineers and architects joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and by Christmas last year there were more than 2,750. Here are some of their comments.
āI’m a chemical engineer with bachelors and masters degrees in engineering from the University of Michigan. I’m an authority on the flammability of materials and I have testified in court on this subject. WTC 7 was demolished with explosives attached to the structural frame. Hardly anything in the building was flammable; it was mostly steel, glass, and masonry.ā ā Bruce Caswell
āMy experience has included being president of three different architectural firms in Michigan and New England. My outrage and shock at being asked to believe the net of lies surrounding this event matches the feelings of the founding members of AE911Truth. As I watched the towers fall on television, I knew the rapid destruction on display made no scientific sense. Though the tentacles of this subject run in every direction, this betrayal of our national confidence and honor as citizens must not be allowed to stand.ā ā Paul R. Bilgen, AIA
āI’m a licensed architect familiar with structural steel design. When considering the yield point of A36 steel and the redundancy factors included in all 21st century buildings, these buildings could not have been collapsed by an airplane of any kind. This was obvious to me at the time I saw the collapse on television. When the first building came down I told my wife that āairplanes cannot make that happen.ā” ā John C. Heflebower
āI have 30 years of diverse design and on-site experience in the engineering field. My most relevant credentials are my extensive experience in computer simulation of structures and mechanical components. I recently reviewed much of the documentation that AE911Truth has supplied and also other sources. My conclusion, based on my engineering experience and intuition, is that structures that are struck in a random nature do not respond with the type of symmetry we see in the WTC towers collapse. In fact, if one were hypothetically tasked to collapse these towers as symmetrically as they fell, it would be nearly impossible, at least for someone without expertise in demolition or other advanced techniques.ā ā Attilio Colangelo
āI have twenty-seven years experience as an engineer, the past eighteen of which have been as an independent consultant. During my career, I have developed a specialty in analyzing and addressing residential and commercial buildings with structural problems. Itās taken a long time for me to come to terms with the real possibility that the true causes of the WTC collapses on 9/11 were obscured from the general public and perhaps much worse. We must know the truth, because whatās left of our democracy depends on it.ā ā Richard Herschiag
āI have worked in almost every city in NY. I have been licensed 24 years doing a variety of work from residential to industrial. I was on the phone with another architect on 9/11. We both noted the flashes on the floors below the collapsing floor when the towers came down. Two years later I was involved in demolishing six buildings in Kodak Park. I realized it was like watching 9/11 all over again. I have no doubt that WTC was controlled demolition. If the mast was not controlled it would have been a sideways fall killing 10,000 more.ā ā James Myers
āI’ve been involved in construction all my professional life. I’ve seen controlled demolitions, and from the day of 9/11/01 watching the towers come down, I knew it had to be a controlled demolition. For the government to not even investigate this possibility in a serious way is beyond unbelievable.ā ā Thomas Kahler
āI have fifteen years experience in defense and private industry engineering and project management. Recognizing that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were instances of controlled demolition is not the hard part. The hard part is overcoming the emotional hurdle that our government betrayed us. I went into shock and had to grieve when I accepted this. As a country we need to face this anger and grief if we are to come to terms with ourselves and leave a legacy we can reconcile with.ā ā Ben Werner
āI have a Bachelor of Architecture and a Master of Architectural (Structural) Engineering. I remember being very surprised by the collapse of the Twin Towers after the planes struck. Despite the damage and fires, it did not seem possible. I also remember reports of Building 7 being evacuated because it was expected to come down from sustained damage. I accepted the explanations given by the media. It wasnāt until years later that I started examining the research of experts on this and other websites and rethinking my discomfort with the official account. From an understanding of steel failure, I would expect any collapse to be gradual and asymmetric. If the official story were true, it would be a major embarrassment to the US design and construction industry that these towers failed so catastrophically, especially Building 7. I want to stand on the right side of history. We all deserve a real investigation with subpoena power, that explores every possibility.ā ā Forrest Mertz
Great stuff, John! We seem to have scared ’em orf!
Perhaps after all these years of trying to bullshit us with crank science they’ve suddenly realised they might be wrong!
– “We seem to have scared āem orf!”
– “… trying to bullshit us with crank science”
Well that about sums it up. Personally I got bored attempting to “discuss” with the closed-minded, and pissed off by the constant deception and abuse. Truthers seem to enjoy bullying; you really need to examine your own souls, and recognise the seed of fascism within. I’ll be as glad as Kempe when it finally dies the death.
Poor Susan Lindauer; poor Sibel Edmonds. With “friends” like the “Truth movement”, who needs enemies? The last show ever…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VLNfMcOW_E
And John Goss, if you ever again see me coming towards you, I suggest you run.
They wouldn’t admit they were wrong if their lives depended on it. My comment exchange with Clark re Barry Jennings proves it – Clark was just plain wrong, so he dropped the subject, after denigrating Jenning’s (RIP) testimony.
I have posted corrections of my own comments many times. I make a point of doing so, because I respect other readers. The fact that you fail to notice is your own fault. Here’s a recent one:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-647183
Jennings’ various accounts contradict each other. That does not reflect badly upon him as a person; it is simply normal, particularly in extreme circumstances. It is, however, a verifiable fact.
It is also a verifiable fact that BB18 are standard mains electrical components and not “special fuses used for remote controlled demolition”, as you pretended, and never retracted. It is you and your blinkered gang who never admit error, and psychologically project that fault onto all who dare to point out errors in the risible “evidence” you present.
I have tried to warn you how much the groupthink you encourage and enforce damages the cause by alienating reasonable onlookers. It falls upon deaf ears. There will never be a proper investigation of 9/11. In part, that is because you and your ilk actually take pride in driving away those who would support it, such as myself.
Feel the pride. You have earned it, by seeding bitterness in my heart.
Yet more NIST fraud:
‘Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire’: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/321-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-5.html
‘AE911Truth ā Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11
If there were a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out through the cooling air exhaust vents. If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient oxygen to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.
Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire
By Chris Sarns
‘….NIST’s Shyam Sunder misinformed Popular Mechanics in its March 2005 article āDebunking the 9/11 Mythsā by telling the writers that there was a fire on Floor 5 of WTC 7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.
The magazine wrote: āSecond, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. ‘There was no firefighting in WTC 7,’ Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: ‘Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time.’ā
A month later, in April 2005, NIST published an interim report on WTC 7 that said essentially the same thing: āThis finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.ā ā NIST Part IIC, April 5, 2005, page 38….’
NIST lives up to it’s Motto: ‘Don’t let facts get in the way of a useful lie’!
Oh do try to attack a valid target rather than a straw man. NIST eliminated diesel fires as a cause in their final report on WTC7. Of course it’s too much to expect you to read what you criticise.
They didn’t have much choice, as it had been abundantly made obvious to them by others.
That does not mitigate the fact they are liars and traitors, and should be in jail till Lucifer comes to claim them.
Paul, the article you quote refers to March and April 2005. Although the NIST investigation had begun in 2004, little had been done as staff were working on the investigation into the Twin Towers until September 2005.
You seem to act a lot like governments themselves do; blame the workers like doctors, engineers and firefighters, but let the politicians and spooks off without a murmur. Have you got your priorities wrong or are you a shill?
EMS DIVISION CHIEF JOHN PERUGGIA – Transcripts:
Engineer predicted of collapse of WTC1:
– At that point I went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I’m not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building’s stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him “You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse.” So, he left off in that direction.
Rubble from WTC2 smashed into lobby of WTC7:
– “Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn’t know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.
– I thought that part of the building or the facade of the building had collapsed. You know, it was too dusty to see outside, so we didn’t know what happened, but I knew something real bad happened. I knew that everyone that we had in the lobby, or we thought everyone was accounted for. Again, there was a lot of rubble in the lobby, probably a few feet. The facade was all broken”
“The faƧade was all broken”
I have not seen any photos of the south facing faƧade of WTC 7, but if the above testimony is true then it confirms the explosive nature of the collapse of WTC 1 which was one block away
Not really. Building 7 was only about 200 metre from the South Tower, which was over 400 metre high. In context, it wasn’t such a far reach; look:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-_aerial_view_%28March_2001%29.jpg
This video is called “Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse”. It’s after the collapse of WTC2, just before the collapse of WTC1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc
The video āInside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapseā above is an excerpt from the following 29 minute video, which begins just after the collapse of WTC2, and includes the collapse of WTC1. The camera operator gets caught in the dust cloud from WTC1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2EZddwTuR0
Nice photo. There is your chance to do some calculations and prove it.
‘Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies: Speaking Out, Pursuing 9/11 Justice’:
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=ddda5557ff&e=%5BUNIQID%5D
‘oday we bring you Part 2 of our recap of the events held last month in Boston, Massachusetts.
In Part 1 of the recap, we shared videos of our presentations at the BSA Space on December 16. Now weāre delighted to release videos of āTruth Is Where Our Healing Lies,ā the event held on December 17.
This gathering of diverse speakers included, among other things, the first public appearance of former NIST employee Peter Michael Ketcham, as well as the first public screening of an excerpt from AE911Truthās upcoming documentary of the Justice In Focus symposium, featuring attorney Daniel Sheehanās keynote address.
We hope you’ll find the videos of these events informative, useful, and inspiring!………’
It is good that a man, Peter Michael Ketchum, a former high-ranking employee with NIST, though not on the 9/11 inquiry, has had the bravery to stand up for science and engineering. His speech is commonsense. When the truth does finally emerge it is, as he says, going to be a hard wound to heal, most painful at the beginning. Speaking on his own behalf he asked the perfectly legitimate question: “why does NIST not blow the whistle on itself?”
I think this might be the most troubling aspect of the outgoing US government. That NIST might blow the whistle on itself has made the incumbency of the president-elect unwelcome and given birth to the most unacceptable malpractices against Donald Trump. Israel is already bombing Syria in an attempt to start a war to end humankind in fear that the truth might emerge.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-12/israeli-jets-bomb-damascus-military-airport-syria-vows-it-will-respond-flagrant-atta
Israel is bombing Syria probably because Israel knows that it will be able to do as it likes so far as Trump is concerned. Trump doesn’t merely support Israel; he supports the Israeli Right – Likud and Netanyahu.
How on earth do you get things so wrong? Don’t you even listen to Trump’s own pronouncements? Trump is an islamophobe, and has said he will introduce registration for all Muslims in the US. He has said he will expose the Saudi role in 9/11, but he’s also opposed to the deal with Iran that brought Iranian oil back onto the international market. That is already pushing oil prices back up (which will make fracking profitable again), but Trump is backed by Koch Brothers coal money. Trump has chosen Pence as his vice-president:
– Pence supported the USA Patriot Act on its passage in 2001, and in 2005 called the act “essential to our continued success in the war on terror here at home”
Trump is a barefaced liar. He knows full well how weak the Twin Towers were, and directly lied about it because he’s a property developer.
I think many Truthers are blind to the Right-wing roots of the sites they visit. I’ve tried in vain to point this out before; YouTube vids promoting demolition that are really just vehicles for attacking prominent figures of the Left including Michael Moore, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and physicist Michio Kaku. None of you take any notice, merely because I challenge Truther mythology. You’re helping to sign our collective death warrant.
Trump is a barefaced liar. He knows full well how weak the Twin Towers were, and directly lied about it because heās a property developer.
Evidence?
I’ve presented many links about the weakness of the Twin Towers; do you want me to repost them? Out-of-court compensation was paid out to many families and victims. Trump said the Towers were strong. His motive to lie is obvious.
I’m flagging up a pattern to your posts. If someone disagrees with you, you say they’re lying. Nobody is honestly mistaken in your world. They either agree with you or they’re lying.
I say Trump is a liar. As a billionaire property developer he must have expert advice from structural engineers, at least for insurance assessment, and so could not have been mistaken and therefore was lying. He also told lots of lies during his presidential campaign.
Most of the misinformation on this thread is bullshit rather than lies. Someone reads something on some site or watches some YouTube vid, and because it supports demolition or some other piece of Truther dogma they accept it without question and repeat it. Given the involvement of Right-wing sites like Infowars, many of these memes are coined as lies, but reposting them here without verification is merely bullshitting. Just as damaging, though.
Example above. John C. Heflebower, fourth paragraph:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-648228
– āIām a licensed architect familiar with structural steel design. When considering the yield point of A36 steel and the redundancy factors included in all 21st century buildings, these buildings could not have been collapsed by an airplane of any kind”.
But the Twin Towers were not made of A36 steel, so was this bullshit or lies? It got published at A&E9/11 Truth, and with 2750 architects and engineers you’d have though one of them would have noticed. Maybe some did but chose to keep quiet to avoid being hounded like me and Kempe are.
How can you get it so wrong??? You say 9/11 was “the new Pearl Harbour” and that Larry Silverstein was central to the conspiracy, yes? Listen to Trump’s now famous interview on 9/11; at 1 minute 3 seconds he says:
– “You look at Larry Silverstein, is a terrific owner in New York and a very good friend of mine who I just called, I was worried about him…”
and at 04:25 Trump says that if he were president:
– “Well, I’d be taking a very, very tough line, Alan, I mean, you know, most people feel they know, at least approximately, the group of people who did this and where they are, but, boy would you have to take a hard line on this, this just can’t be tolerated […]This was probably worse than Pearl Harbour…”
THESE versions, by Infowars and STF News, quote his bit about aircraft maybe carrying bombs, but BOTH omit BOTH sections I’ve pointed out. Infowars is well known to be a Right-wing site.
You people are being led a merry dance by Right-wing propagandists and liars, and for going to the trouble of telling you, you call me a crackpot and try to “scare me orf”.
Sorry, links.
Infowars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi9Z43tC2eQ
STF News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSSwXvsEX_c
And the original Trump interview from which I quoted and gave times for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKlPhFIE7w
” Peter Michael Ketchum, a former high-ranking employee with NIST ”
He was an iPhone APP developer. Hardly high-ranking and he left NIST in 2011. I’d hate to think he was laid off and is just out for revenge.
“Iād hate to think he was laid off and is just out for revenge.”
No. You would like to think that was the case. Still the same old ad hominem Kempe. Attack the person not the truth of his argument.
Truth? Which truth would that be? Which version of the myriad conspiracies?
Not an ad hominem attack, I leave those to others, just pointing out the errors in your description of the man and pondering on his motivation.
Quite clearly you have not watched it. You still have not debated it. Like I said: “Still the same old ad hominem Kempe.” The man you try to denigrate as an iPhone APP developer is something more than that. He has lower and higher degrees in mathematics. This is from his Linkedin page.
“Mathematician
National Institute of Standards and Technology
August 1997 ā October 2011 (14 years 3 months)Gaithersburg, MD
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a nonregulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. Founded in 1901, its mission is to support and promote innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology.
ā¢ Created visualizations and animations of scientific data.
ā¢ Developed programs and tools for scientific computing.
ā¢ Organized and hosted applied mathematics seminar series.
ā¢ Published research papers on scientific computing and visualization.
ā¢ Assisted with completion of the digital library of mathematical functions.
ā¢ Participated in development of the interoperable message passing interface specification.
ā¢ Assisted physical scientists with research applications on high performance computing systems.
ā¢ Participated in activities of the federal information technology research and development program.
(Open)1 honor or award
Bronze Medal Award for Superior Federal Service
Awarded for technical achievement in scientific visualization. The Bronze Medal Award is the highest honor presented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology”
So, Kempe, ad hominem Kempe, (with degrees in what?) feels justified in trying to ridicule him. Shame. But it is what we have come to expect.
This is his Linkedin page, not just a selective quote from it.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/petermichaelketcham
What does it say at the top?
Conspiracists have talked up this guy as a “high ranking” official in NIST and implied that he has relevant specialist knowledge. It’s not an ad hominem attack to point out that this is incorrect.
Like I said “ad hominem”.
Now you’re trying to wriggle out of your attempt to belittle his former work with NIST because he has moved into trying to held the disabled. Sometimes Kempe it seems you have no shame.
And this is what is says directly below his current job description.
“Mobile application developer currently building a data visualization application for Apple iOS devices with an emphasis on accessibility for disabled users. Other interests include data science, virtual reality environments, haptic technologies, hierarchical data formats, matrix computations, and Swift numeric data types for rational numbers, complex numbers, and quaternions.”
And poor old Clarke STILL hasn’t explained how the staircase exploded under Jenning’s feet in WTC 7 when neither of the Twin Towers had collapsed. Maybe the staircase was as weak as the Twin Towers, and simply exploded because they couldn’t withstand the weight of two men descending at the same time. Actually, there were even more than two men in the Towers; perhaps their weight had a great deal to do with the Towers’ collapse.
Perhaps the architects of the Twin Towers got their degrees from Meccano Ltd.
I suspect that the staircase in WTC7 was violently destroyed by a heavy impact from the collapse of WTC2. That would be consistent with this video which shows the state of WTC7 between the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc
Jennings didn’t suffer deafness and wasn’t hit by shrapnel. The staircase collapsed beneath him and he had to drag himself back up; he was not blown backwards. Of what he saw when he got to a window and looked out, he said something like “look one way and the building was there, look the other and the building was gone“, so that’s also consistent with the staircase being damaged by the collapse of WTC2.
If you’re desperate to believe that Jennings was murdered, you can reason as follows.
WTC7 had been pre-rigged with demolition charges. Some explosives loader and site photographer says that staircases are always deconstructed before a building demolition, but in the case of WTC7 it was decided to do this, too, with explosives. Jennings was caught when one such charge – but only one – was detonated for no apparent reason at about the same time as WTC2 collapsed. Jennings survived and went on to give multiple interviews, including on national TV, but years later got ill, and was killed while under medical observation in hospital by someone working for a bunch of engineers because an engineering report was due to be released two days later.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense…
There’s another problem with the “Jennings witnessed a demolition charge” hypothesis. Apart from the proposed explosion on the WTC7 staircase, what else in Jennings’ account could be the collapse of WTC2? That collapse wrecked WTC7’s faƧade and deposited much rubble in the lobby; you’d expect Jennings to have noticed something.
that would be consistent with this video which shows the state of WTC7 between the collapses of WTC2 and WTC1:
The video is titled “Inside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapse ” which suggests that it was filmed after BOTH towers had fallen.
It’s an excerpt from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2EZddwTuR0
..which starts with the collapse of WTC2, then shows the scene at WTC7, and then the collapse of WTC1.
The title āInside 7 World Trade Center Moments Before Collapseā does seem to suggest the collapse of WTC7, but it can’t be because the exclusion zone around WTC7 was enforced hours before it collapsed, yet in that video various people are inside WTC7.
You can also confirm that the video was taken late morning by the angle of shadows; the Sun was yet to reach due south. The section in and around WTC7 itself has no shadows due to the dust cloud (which itself confirms the approximate time), but sections before and after confirm it.
@ Clark January 14, 2017 at 15:02
‘…ālook one way and the building was there, look the other and the building was goneā, so thatās also consistent with the staircase being damaged by the collapse of WTC2.’
For God’s sake, how do you work that one out? When Barry Jennings broke the window with a fire extinguisher and looked out, and said he looked one way and the building was there, looked the other way and it was gone’ was AFTER the stairs had exploded beneath him, and AFTER he had made his way back up to the 8th floor.
That means, that when the stairs exploded, both Towers were still standing.
So WHAT caused the stairs to explode?
If you can’t get your head round that, it’s no wonder you come up with all sorts of rubbish about how weak the Twins were, without, of course, a shred of evidence.
That’s right, AFTER, meaning the building fell BEFORE, ie. around the time that the starcase collapsed beneath Jennings.
I’ve posted copious evidence of the weak, shoddy design and inadequate fire protection of the Twn Towers. Why pretend otherwise? Are you supporting the official story that the Twin Towers “performed well”?
@ Clark January 15, 2017 at 12:51
‘…Thatās right, AFTER, meaning the building fell BEFORE, ie. around the time that the starcase collapsed beneath Jennings…..’
What is the matter with you? You can’t be as stupid as you make out.
Timeline: Jennings and co-worker (Hess, I believe) start to descend the stairs to exit the building; the staircase explodes beneath them at the 6th floor; they make their way back up to the 8th floor; Barry Jennings breaks a window with a fire extinguisher and looks out, looks one way and sees both Towers STANDING; looks back and one has collapsed. BUT THEY WERE BOTH STANDING WHEN THE STAIRS EXPLODED; it doesn’t matter that it was only microseconds after they had got back to the 8th floor and Jennings looked out, that one collapsed. The important thing is, neither had collapsed at the time of the staircase explosion.
Furthermore, the official line is that it was WTC 1 falling debris that impacted WTC 7; that was, of course, the second Tower to collapse, and not for some time after WTC 2.
The timeline is incredibly simple to follow, but somehow you can’t seem to follow it.
– “and looks out, looks one way and sees both Towers STANDING; looks back and one has collapsed”.
What? You mean he was looking the wrong way, didn’t hear the collapse and was gawping at WTC1 for so long he failed to notice the collapse of WTC2? Pull the other one; it’s got bells on.
– “Furthermore, the official line is that it was WTC 1 falling debris that impacted WTC 7”
What? You’re using the official story to make your case? Getting desperate?
Look at the video above:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-649542
And read the testimony:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-649150
WTC2’s collapse burst into WTC7, and wrecked the lobby at least. Did Jennings miss it? Or was it what he experienced in the stairwell?
Some might already have seen this since it has been around more than four years. It is an ex-CIA operative’s opinion that the towers were demolished by nano-thermite. The clips are from a variety of sources including the NIST releases. Every time I see those poor people hanging from windows with no means of escape, and think of all those trapped inside who cannot get to a window, it brings tears to my eyes. We must fight these government lies, and those pushing this false narrativeon their behalf, for those they mercilessly slaughtered without compunction. Until the truth is out we must persevere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnbMjAN7Bws
That ex-CIA operative is Susan Lindauer. She has vital first-hand testimony of her own, which has absolutely nothing to do with demolition of the Twin Towers.
The visits of vans in the night was seeded to her from “a senior official in the State Department”, probably the most neocon-infiltrated of US departments. Tellingly, this official insisted upon anonymity.
The trucks in the night (1) could have been anything, (2) are uncorroborated, and (3) do not coincide with the alleged “power down” mentioned above on this page.
Demolition of the Twin Towers (1) has no supporting evidence, (2) has very strong evidence against it (most notably inward bowing and buckling of the perimeters of both WTC1 and 2), and (3) is dismissed by the vast majority of mechanical engineers and relevant academics the world over. Frankly, demolition of the Twin Towers is not credible.
I find it almost certain that this senior State Department official seeded the quite possibly false story of trucks in the night to discredit Susan Lindauer, because of her highly damaging first-hand testimony.
Truther peer-group pressure and bullying, like the attempts to drive me from this thread, finished the job. Demolition of the Twin Towers is effectively being used as a psy-op it cripple and fracture the Truth Movement.
The Twin Towers were of cheap, lousy design and construction, with inadequate fire protection – there is copious evidence for this. The people trapped on the upper floors were killed by economic forces that the Truth Movement leaves unchallenged, as it wastes its energy and discredits itself with “demolition” that the conspirators know to be forever unprovable, for the very sound reason that it never happened.
John, the least you could do ifor Susan Lindauer is to post a summary of her first-hand evidence and the pay-off that went to her CIA handler.
– “The Twin Towers were of cheap, lousy design and construction, with inadequate fire protection”
The “official story”, of course, is that the Twin Tower buildings “performed well”. Yeah, right.
Victim and family compensation for the rapid and unprecidented building collapses were all settled out-of-court, with gag-orders imposed.
Sorry for all the afterthoughts; there’s a lot to remember. It would help if I wasn’t so isolated.
You would not be so isolated if you your claims were not physically impossible.
On Jan13, 23.48 I invited you to prove your claim that debris from WTC 2 could have easily reached WTC 7. Either you did not see it or chose to ignore it. OK, so letās consider some numbers now
The plane hit WTC 2 at floor 80 or thereabouts and letās assume a trajectory from this position hitting WTC 7 at floor 20, so a drop of 60 floors. Consider a square tube 15cm*15cm and 15mm thick; steel density of 7,500kg/m3. Assume drag coefficient of 0.82 for the area along the length of the tube.
This object would take 7.1 seconds to drop 60 floors. The distance between the buildings is 200m, so an average horizontal velocity of 28m/s. Taking drag into account the initial velocity would have been 32m/s. Feel free to check my numbers.
Iāve lost count of the number of time I have asked you to explain where did the lateral energy to break the buildings apart and eject debris laterally came from. In the initial phase of the collapse the vertical velocity of the falling structure would have been low (7 m/s) and yet the horizontal velocity of the ejecting debris 32 m/s.
So I ask again, what is the mechanism for creating lateral forces capable of ripping the whole building apart and ejecting debris at high velocity. You have promised some numbers so there is your chance.
To reach Building 7, debris from the impact zone had to spread by about 35 degrees. Big deal; a collapsing tower of dominoes can manage that. That’s without considering that stuff hitting the ground would not stop dead (d’uh) but vector off in all sorts of unpredictable directions – try watching a rugby ball hit the ground. Further, WTC6 was between WTC2 and WTC7, supplying a raised point for such debris to deflect from.
If you want to know where the lateral energy came from, try watching a game of snooker, or ask yourself how sailships manage to sail into the wind š
And Nikko, I may be isolated among the demolition theorists on this thread, but among the worldwide physics and engineering communities, the vast majority reject demolition of the Twin Towers.
Oh, and try watching some actual controlled demolitions. They DON’T eject large pieces of debris. Are you suggesting that the alleged conspiring demolition designers were so incompetant that they placed big bombs in the middle of open office space (where tens of thousands of incoming staff completely failed to notice them) so that the air pressure wave propelled large pieces of perimeter rather than fracturing them, as small charges in contact with the structural frame would have? Maybe they strapped minature rockets to the frame, just to create a conundrum? Or maybe the perimeter peeled outwards, as is consistent with the pile-driver theory. I’ll go with the latter, thanks.
But the towers were not made from loosely stacked pieces like domino towers, so your example is completely inappropriate. The analogy with sailing or snooker fails to account for the higher velocity of the ejected material. Your answers reveal how little you understand physics.
This is WTC1, but it’s a very clear shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUofuu36hag
From just before 0:10 to the change of shot at 0:12, watch the huge section of perimeter toppling outwards to the right. Does a tree that’s felled require explosives strapped to the trunk to make it topple? No. The motion of that perimeter section alone appears to account for some 150 metre of dispersion, before it has even finished falling. Smaller debris hit by it could have been batted even further. The same effect is seen multiple times in both collapses, but this example happened to be clear of dust.
The explosives you keep insisting upon are entirely unnecessary, and should therefore be purged from the theory unless specific evidence for it turns up.
Thanks for the smear, by the way. I’m sure you’re very clever.
A toppling tree rotates around a static fulcrum. The position of the base of a toppling tree does not change. What you see in the video is freely falling debris following a parabolic path. The debris is not toppling as it is not attached at its base to its original support. In some cases the debris is 100s of feet away (horizontally) from its original position.
So if you want your theory to have credence you need to identify the forces and mechanism which were responsible for ejecting the debris 100s of feet away from their original position? Simple toppling, as you suggest, does not do it.
Fair enough. As the top section or “pile driver” descended, it imparted outward impulse to the tops of the perimeter sections first, starting the toppling. At this point the sections were still attached below – your fixed fulcrum, if you like. But the top section “pile driver” continued to descend, imparting outward impulse to the lower ends some seconds later. Hence both toppling, and overall outward motion.
Also, it was the descent of the “pile driver” that was disconnecting the perimeter sections from the floor trusses that provided lateral support. So each perimeter section lost lateral support above before it lost it below.
Nikko, you post a lot of comments to keep me on the defensive, so I’m going to refer you to this:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-649700
The fact is, cutter charges on the frame would not produce large outward velocities of big intact sections. You’d need big bombs placed well back from the perimeter, producing large air pressure pulses to achieve that. Is that what you’re suggesting? If so, why are their shock waves not seen in the smoke and dust clouds? How did they impart the angular momentum of the characteristic toppling?
The outer walling was constructed from prefabricated sections that were welded together and staggered brick like fashion for greater strength. Destruction of the outer walling the way you describe it implies bending at the support point to the point of breakage, before it becomes free and starts flying away horizontally at great velocity. Do not forget that construction steel is pretty ductile. And as the outer walling disintegrated into small sections, it also implies breaking of all the joints between sections along their vertical dimension.
Keep fooling yourself Clark, but If you want us to accept your theory that all this was achieved by gravity alone while the buildings collapsed at 70% of freefall speed, all you need to do is come up with the numbers that support it. So far you have done nothing of the sort. And do not forget that we have already established that in the early phases of the collapse the available energy for destruction from a mass of falling floors was absolutely tiny (of the order of a few grams of TNT equivalent).
But Nikko, cutter charges could impart hardly any velocity to perimeter sections. Observation of known controlled demolitions proves this.
Construction steel is quite ductile, though the perimeter steel of the Twin Towers was less so; using more brittle steel of higher yield strength enabled less steel to be used, reducing costs.
– “And as the outer walling disintegrated into small sections, it also implies breaking of all the joints between sections along their vertical dimension”.
But the section I pointed out in the video was tens of metre wide and long, as were many other such sections. Why do you ask readers to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, as you propagandise for demolition that never happened?
And no, YOU are ignoring that the kinetic energy lost through conservation of momentum became available to decouple the floor trusses from the uprights, and that the onset of collapse proceeded at much less than 70% of g. Why misrepresent the physics to less knowledgable readers?
“Construction steel is quite ductile, though the perimeter steel of the Twin Towers was less so; using more brittle steel of higher yield strength enabled less steel to be used, reducing costs.”
You are waffling Clark, “quite ductile”, “less so”, “more brittle”, etc are meaningless terms.
“But the section I pointed out in the video was tens of metre wide and long, as were many other such sections. Why do you ask readers to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes, as you propagandise for demolition that never happened?
Exactly, the joints along all dimension had to have been broken. Where did the energy come from?
“And no, YOU are ignoring that the kinetic energy lost through conservation of momentum became available to decouple the floor trusses from the uprights, and that the onset of collapse proceeded at much less than 70% of g. Why misrepresent the physics to less knowledgable readers?”
You clearly do not understand because that is exactly what I calculated – the energy released as a result of the collapse proceeding at a slower rate than freefall. We can argue about the exact speed of the collapse but it does not change the fact that during the initial phases of the collapse this available energy was tiny.
“Do not forget that construction steel is pretty ductile” was YOUR statement, Nikko. It is YOU that is “waffling”.
No, the perimeter fell in great chunks, as any fool can observe, which means that your statement “the joints along all dimension had to have been broken” is false. In any case, the available potential energy was immense, as I calculated earlier. All that needed to be broken was the floor truss connections to the uprights, requiring a trivially small proportion of that available energy.
You are a propagandist, Nikko, and I have wasted quite enough time on your nonsense. If you think you have any substantive points, submit them to an engineering journal, and link to the discussion so we can follow its progress.
Yes, I said construction steel is pretty ductile. As a statement that is accurate if vague. You referred to properties referenced to this vague condition which you did not back up with any facts and that is why I dismissed them as meaningless waffle.
What you calculated Clark was the kinetic energy of a falling object. As I have pointed several times before that energy does not become available unless the falling object is brought to rest. Other than that you have calculated nothing.
It seems to me Clark that, on the one hand, your knowledge of physics and real world engineering is very rudimentary and incomplete, on the other hand, your standard of proof is very low to fit in with your limited understanding. Call me what you like but you would do yourself more credit if you would support scientifically what you are saying, rather than rely on waffle. Enough time wasted on this.
– “the kinetic energy of a falling object […] does not become available unless the falling object is brought to rest”.
Well that’s very black-or-white; obviously, slowing it down will release some of the energy. Chandler’s measurement is that the roof-line of WTC1 initially fell at about 0.64 of g. Although I suspect he smoothed his graph too much, that still leaves great residual power for destruction.
There’s nothing wrong with inequalities. If you bothered to read my comments you’d know about the more brittle, high yield-strength steel that was used in order to reduce costs.
Beyond that, I see you have reverted to ad hominen. I remind you yet again that it’s not me that has to provide any proof, because I’m satisfied by the widely accepted null hypothesis, as I have been since I saw the bowing and buckling.
ā āthe kinetic energy of a falling object [ā¦] does not become available unless the falling object is brought to restā.
You are right – sloppy language on my part. Should have written…. unless the falling object is slowed down or brought to rest.
“Chandlerās measurement is that the roof-line of WTC1 initially fell at about 0.64 of g. Although I suspect he smoothed his graph too much, that still leaves great residual power for destruction”.
I have calculated that the amount of energy (particularly in the early phases) is tiny but you “suspect” that it is great. You make no attempt what so ever to support scientifically your statement or make incorrect claims but expect us to accept it – that is ignorance with arrogance. No wonder nobody is buying.
I made an extremely conservative calculation for available energy. Your suspicion that only a tiny proportion of it could have become available for destruction stems from some calculations based upon assumptions that I find highly questionable.
We cannot know the proportion of energy distributed to various parts of the structure at each instant of collapse. We can set bounds upon it, and we could attempt to estimate it to increasing degrees of accuracy by use of increasingly realistic physical simulations.
I am satisfied that the null hypothesis fits both observation and gross reckoning of load limits very reasonably. Therefore it is not my responsibility to prove that sufficient energy became available from the vast excess which we know to have been present. Rather, it is up to you to show that it was unavailable. However, as you do not even have an alternative hypothesis that is consistent with observation, attempting to disprove the null hypothesis seems like putting the cart before the horse.
No wonder the international physics and engineering communities have not yet bought into demolition of the Twin Towers.
“I made an extremely conservative calculation for available energy. Your suspicion that only a tiny proportion of it could have become available for destruction stems from some calculations based upon assumptions that I find highly questionable.”
You calculated the kinetic energy of a falling slab. As I wrote before that energy only becomes available in its entirety to do work if the falling mass comes to a rest or partially if it is slowed down. What you calculated is a meaningless number. The energy available for destruction is due to the difference between freefall and actual velocity. It is your understanding of physics which is highly questionable.
Yes, I calculated the KE of a single floor slab falling through one storey Of course I understand that only the velocity it loses can contribute energy towards destruction. However, neither of us know how much any given floor slab was decelerated because such detail was hidden from view. Whet we DO know is that the whole falling top section carried, say, between ten and twenty times the kinetic energy of one floor slab. Even if the lowest falling floor slab was stopped completely (releasing ALL the KE I calculated), the rest of the moving section surely wouldn’t be. It would simply decouple from the moving section of vertical frame.
That moving vertical frame would have its own destructive effects upon the floor-to-upright couplings. Or, if the upper frame fell outside the lower perimeter, the lower section of frame would be busy decoupling floor slabs from the upper, moving section of uprights.
If you couldn’t work this out for yourself, your ability to effectively visualise WHOLE physical systems (rather than idealised parts of them) is severely limited. You’ve shown you can do maths, but the real skill is in correctly representing the physical system.
Now, please explain to me how, in your hypothesis, explosives propel perimeter sections outwards, and why this is never seen in known controlled demolitions.
āYes, I calculated the KE of a single floor slab falling through one storey Of course I understand that only the velocity it loses can contribute energy towards destruction. However, neither of us know how much any given floor slab was decelerated because such detail was hidden from view.ā
I am glad we agree on the physics. As for the speed of the descent of the floor slabs, Iād say that taking it to be the same as speed of the visible outer structure would be an excellent estimate.
āIf you couldnāt work this out for yourself, your ability to effectively visualise WHOLE physical systems (rather than idealised parts of them) is severely limited. Youāve shown you can do maths, but the real skill is in correctly representing the physical system.ā
I agree that representing the whole system in its entirety is what is needed. I do not follow and agree with your descriptions so here is your chance to do something convincing.
āNow, please explain to me how, in your hypothesis, explosives propel perimeter sections outwards, and why this is never seen in known controlled demolitionsā
I have seen videos of demolitions where the perimeter was wrapped in retaining material to stop the lateral ejection of debris. Besides, the twin towers were unique in that their outer walling was a continuous structure from the bottom up which contributed significantly to the overall strength. A comparison is not appropriate as the demolition techniques would need to differ.
– “I have seen videos of demolitions where the perimeter was wrapped in retaining material to stop the lateral ejection of debris”
Would those be concrete structures with charges placed in holes drilled into the concrete? If so, the wrapping would be to contain shrapnel; big sections aren’t going to be blown very far. If you have a video, post a link.
If you’re attributing the outward motion of perimeter sections to explosives, you have multiple problems. Huge sections fell away as relatively undistorted pieces. However, the dust ejections through the windows proceeded down the faces of the buildings ahead of that effect…
Now I could imagine hundreds of charges to disconnect floor trusses from the uprights, if detonated simultaneously, could push big sections of perimeter outwards, but then the tops of the perimeter sections wouldn’t have started swinging outwards before the bottom edges did, as seen. Worse, the internal collapse would become visible, and it wouldn’t be a descending wave of ejections. The internal collapse would no longer have been constrained by the perimeter; rubble and dust would have spread, depriving the collapse wave of mass and momentum.
I suppose hundreds of charges, detonated in a descending sequence, could have disconnected the floor trusses from the uprights, but then why postulate explosives to push the perimeter sections outward? To effectively couple blast to the perimeter sections it would have to be buffered in some way, such as placing big bombs well back from the perimeter so that the air pressure shock wave pushed the perimeter sections outwards – though they still wouldn’t swing, as witnessed Or what? Lots of different strength charges on the inside of the perimeter, big ones at the top of each (predefined) section decreasing to little ones at the bottom? And how come the shock waves from the floor-truss-to-uprights charges don’t set them off as the wave of detonation for the internal collapse goes past?
It’s all getting very elaborate, isn’t it? As I’ve said before, if I wanted to induce the behaviour witnessed, loading the top floors with lots of heavy stuff would be the best way. Explosives are worse than useless, though not as bad as thermite which is much too slow for any sequencing.
– – – – – –
I’m short of time at present, so briefly – gawd knows the precise sequence of events as the top sections started to fall, but very soon a growing body of material, presumably rubble and debris, was smashing its way down through successive floor assemblies, mostly heading downward but also applying some lateral pressure inwards upon the core and outwards upon the perimeter. Deprived of its lateral support (which had been supplied by the floor trusses) the perimeter succumbed to that pressure and peeled away outwards in great sections. When the falling material within the perimeter hit bottom, maximum crushing occurred and huge dust clouds were expelled.
āAs Iāve said before, if I wanted to induce the behavior witnessed, loading the top floors with lots of heavy stuff would be the best wayā
So you keep saying without providing a shred of back up evidence. Simple calculations show that the available energy from even 10 floors starting the collapse is negligible.
āExplosives are worse than useless, though not as bad as thermite which is much too slow for any sequencing.ā
Have you considered that both could have been used.
Nikko, if it looked like a load of charges, I’d say so, but it doesn’t. It looks like a sort of vertical avalanche within a cage, with the cage all falling apart outward almost as soon as the avalanche has passed. As the avalanche hits the bottom a huge cloud of dust bursts out.
I made some energy calculations here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-646653
– “To get a handle on the available energy I considered the highly conservative case of a single floor assembly falling through a single inter-floor gap. Using your earlier figures of 865 tonne per floor slab falling through 3.7 metre, it would carry some 31 megajoule by the time it hit the slab beneath. Using your more recent figures of 1500 tonne and 3.8 metre gap, we have nearly 56 megajoule. These translate to between about 7.5 and 13.5 kilo of TNT.”
But the whole top was falling, so let’s multiply by, say, fifteen, for ten floor slabs, office contents, a mechanical floor and the equipment it carried, the hat truss, the perimeter and core – fifteen seems very conservative – and take a middling value of 10 kilo from our range of TNT equivalent, which gives about 150 kilo of TNT. If the top was falling at 2/3 of g, then 1/3 of that is the available energy, equivalent to about 50 kilo of TNT.
OK, you could argue that the lowermost falling floor slab couldn’t deliver all that energy, but the uprights had to go somewhere and they were carrying all that weight. Any damage done that stops them carrying horizontal structure will just release most of its weight onto the top of the topmost intact surface – however it happens the outcome will be similar – a cascade of floor failures.
I do not quite follow your numbers but I do not dispute your estimate of 50 tons of TNT equivalent of energy released by a mass of 22,500 tons falling at 2/3 gravity compared to freefall. My calculation at 60 tons of TNT is close enough.
What I dispute, however, is the validity of your assumption that this represents a realistic situation. First of all I do not accept that the mass of 10 floors somehow found itself at the level of the plane impact (WTC 1) to start falling as one body to initiate the collapse. Also, when I estimated the mass of one floor I took the mass of the concrete and increased it by 50% to account for the steel and equipment. Your further increase by another 50% does not seem justified but letās not argue about detail at this stage but concentrate on the wider principles behind the collapse.
Your theory implies pancaking of the floor slabs and as such we can calculate the increase in the collapse time due to the effect of conservation of momentum at each impact point. With WTC 1 and the plane impact point at floor 100, the collapse time is 11.7s. This compares to 8.4s for pure freefall. The freefall time is, therefore, 71% of the actual collapse time with pancaking and I take it that that is what you mean by āfalling at 2/3 of gā.
So in this scenario the collapsing front was not subject to any further deceleration that would enable kinetic energy of the falling mass to be released to do external work.
Nikko, from your last two paragraphs:
– “…we can calculate the increase in the collapse time due to the effect of conservation of momentum at each impact point. […] …the collapsing front was not subject to any further deceleration that would enable kinetic energy of the falling mass to be released to do external work”.
Inelastic collisions, in conserving momentum, release kinetic energy as deformation, sound and ultimately heat. I think that kinetic energy released in this way should be counted as available for destruction and/or decoupling of floor assemblies, unless you know of some reason that it shouldn’t.
My “2/3 of g” is just a convenient approximation I chose, based on Chandler’s measurement of the drop of WTC1’s roofline. His actual figure was 64% of g, but he’d drawn a straight line through his data points. His first four points after drop begins could be taken as a straight line in their own right, which would give an initially slower acceleration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk
I don’t assume pancaking in the sense of entire floor assemblies decoupling as units and/or remaining intact throughout the collapse. Neither do I assume the “pile driver” in the sense of the whole top section remaining in tact. The ejections at the collapse front look to be full of dust so I think that much rubble and debris was present, but beyond that we cannot see. It doesn’t really matter anyway; whatever form it was in by then it still had mass and velocity, and therefore destructive potential.
Similarly with the initial descent of the top section. We can’t see it for long before it falls into the dust cloud. But if the top of the lower section initially arrested the fall of the top section’s lowest attached floor assembly, it won’t have stopped the rest of the top section, it’ll have just decoupled that assembly from the top part of the frame, and so another floor assembly would have arrived very soon. So in considering initiation of a cascade of floor failures, the obvious figures to work with pertain to the whole top section, which can’t really do anything but fall.
You are right that in inelastic collisions kinetic energy is released as deformations, however, this energy is absorbed internally and not available to do external work.
Whether you call it pancaking or by some other term, your theory involves floors colliding and, therefore, there is no getting away that this slows the rate of fall. An object falling at 2/3 of g would reach the ground at 10.2s compared to pancaking floors at 11.7s. So if you are working with floors colliding with each other, then assuming that they were falling at 2/3 of g is incorrect and meaningless.
– “You are right that in inelastic collisions kinetic energy is released as deformations, however, this energy is absorbed internally and not available to do external work”
Well we’re talking about floor slabs connected to the frame. Deformation of floor slabs, or deformation of their connections to the frame, if it goes far enough, seems to me like the same thing as breaking them, and it looks like enough kinetic energy is dissipated to break them.
I agree that conservation of momentum is bound to decrease the acceleration of the collapse front. But I’m not “assuming” 2/3 of g. That’s roughly Chandler’s measurement for the first couple of seconds of descent of the roofline of WTC1, though as I said, the first second of his data looks slower than that to me, and I can’t see any justification for assuming constant acceleration. Lower acceleration implies even more energy available for destruction.
Sorry, I’d missed your point here when I replied:
– “An object falling at 2/3 of g would reach the ground at 10.2s compared to pancaking floors at 11.7s. So if you are working with floors colliding with each other, then assuming that they were falling at 2/3 of g is incorrect and meaningless”
I’d sort of answered serendipitously anyway; Chandler’s tracking measurements only covered the first two or three seconds. We don’t have accurate overall collapse times. It also must be remembered that the debris pile was quite high reducing the overall drop for some of the material, and we don’t have an exact figure for the fracture height – in fact, there probably isn’t one, failure having occurred at a range of heights about the damaged zones.
āā¦ā¦ā¦and it looks like enough kinetic energy is dissipated to break them.ā
Dream on. We have just established that a falling rate of 2/3 of g is impossible with a colliding scenario because it actually needs an input of external energy.
Sorry to say so Clark, but you are waffling again. If you are not assuming 2/3 of g, then what are you assuming? After the initial split second, Chandlerās graph clearly shows constant acceleration throughout the duration of the 3 second measurement.
Under your colliding scenario, during the first 3 seconds, the rate of fall would change from an initial 9.8 m/s2 to 4.1 m/s2. Had that been the case it would be clearly visible on Chandlerās graph. Another proof that colliding floor collapse could not have happened and did not happen.
I am not “waffling” in the slightest. Since you’re down to the difference between 64% (Chandler) and 66.6 recurring percent (my convenient figure of 2/3), are YOU saying that 0.64g breaks conservation of momentum?
What possible justification do you have for extrapolating from the first three seconds to the whole collapse? None. And that shallower section of graph represents a WHOLE second, not a split one; the five data points are spaced 0.2 seconds apart.
And I’ll remind you that force is a VECTOR. If you’re really standing by your theory of explosions being necessary, you now need to propose explosives that drove the collapse DOWNWARDS. You’ve been banging on about explosives driving the perimeter sections OUTWARDS, without accounting for their fairly consistent angular momentum which looks SO much like toppling. If you’re going to argue that explosives decoupled the floor slabs ahead of the internal collapse debris (not that this would help your momentum argument appreciably – think about it), the perimeter sections would have been blown outward along their bottom edges first, so instead of toppling OUTWARD they’d have fallen leaning INWARD. Like I’ve always said, explosives would be useless for producing the effects seen.
Keep arguing; you’re just strengthening the case against explosives. I particularly loved your concept (January 20, 14:39) of deformation of the floor slabs being “external” to the floor slabs! Gone quiet about that, haven’t you?
By saying that you were waffling I meant that you were ignoring the main point of the discussion and going off at tangents with new fanciful explanations of what you think happened.
Either you misunderstood, or chose not to understand, my point about Chandlerās graph in relation to your theory. My point was not about the accuracy of 2/3 g vs 64% of g (perfectly close enough for me too), but about the fact that the observed collapse as reported by Chandler excludes the possibility of a collapse initiated by colliding floors.
You mention extrapolation. There you go again making things up as I have not mentioned extrapolation. My comments referred specifically to the initial 3 second period. That is sufficient to prove your theory wrong without any need to extrapolate.
I am glad to hear that you know that force is a vector. On the basis of what you presented so far one would be excused to think that you did not know. And I would like to remind you that the discussion is not about my theories but about yours. I have not been banging on about explosives driving perimeter sections outwards but I have most certainly been banging on to get you to explain where the force came from. You failed to do so. Your comment about my post (jan 20, 14:39) is bollocks ā just read what I have written again.
I am not arguing any theory but I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments. So letās summarise where we are. According to Chandlerās evidence, the acceleration of the collapse was constant during the first 3 seconds. According to Clarkās theory of colliding floors, during the same time the acceleration cannot be constant and (ignoring losses) would change from 9.8 to 4.1 m/s2.
As Clarkās theory is so clearly in conflict with what was observed, it is safe to conclude that Clarkās theory is wrong .
– “My point was […] that the observed collapse as reported by Chandler excludes the possibility of a collapse initiated by colliding floors”.
“Colliding floors” did not initiate the collapse. The descent of the whole top section initiated the descending internal collapse front of floor failures.
– “I have not been banging on about explosives driving perimeter sections outwards…”
Well you could have fooled me; page after page of it…
– “…but I have most certainly been banging on to get you to explain where the force came from”
OK, so once the internal collapse front has got started, there’s a mass of descending material within the perimeter frame. AS I have said repeatedly, most of its destructive force acts downwards. But piles of debris will spread if permitted; if constrained they exert forces outward. This force initiates the toppling of the now laterally unsupported perimeter sections.
In doing so they expend some energy. How much energy does the toppling of the perimeter sections amount to? This is hard to quantify since (1) the motion is obscured by dust and (2) other effects contribute. We could track the later, more visible motion of the sections and calculate backward to find the initial outward velocity of their top edges. But would this be worthwhile? The initial potential energy constitutes a vast supply, far more than is required for complete destruction of the buildings. You do it if you’re hoping to find an energy deficit, and good luck. Personally, I’m satisfied by the null hypothesis.
– “According to Chandlerās evidence, the acceleration of the collapse was constant during the first 3 seconds”
No, that’s his argument; he drew the straight line. His evidence is considerably less specific than that.
– “during the [first three seconds] the acceleration cannot be constant and (ignoring losses) would change from 9.8 to 4.1 m/s2”
So you say. Description of the physical model followed by appropriate calculations are required to support this.
Letās take the more significant points in your last post.
āā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦..But piles of debris will spread if permitted; if constrained they exert forces outward. This force initiates the toppling of the now laterally unsupported perimeter sections.ā
First of all the outer perimeter walling was a square tube, made of sections that were bolted and welded together. So it was not unsupported per se because tubes are able to support themselves. What you are implying is that without a floor the perimeter walling disintegrated. This cannot be the case as the sections of the walling were attached to each other top, bottom and sides and staggered like brickwork for even greater strength.
Secondly, if there is no floor there can be pile of debris to exert lateral force.
Your explanation of how the lateral forces are created is just silly ā a proper explanation would include some evidence, calculation or other proof. Saying that the potential energy is enough is not proof.
You keep mentioning null hypothesis. I thought we were discussing physics, not statistics.
You say that Chandler ādrew a straight lineā. I have not gone into the detail of his work but I thought he made measurements which, when plotted out, gave a straight line. Are you saying that Chandler just plotted a straight line and made it all up?
Finally, you ask for evidence how my numbers were calculated. I have already answered you a while back by explaining that I have used basic equations of motions and gave you all you needed to know to check it yourself. Here it is again so you can do your own checks.
The collapse is started by the mass of 10 floor slabs equivalent falling from rest onto the slab below. Distance between floors = 3.8m, g=9.81m. All resistance ignored. Everything else you can find in an Aālevel text book.
This is such a basic level of physics that I am surprised you need to ask. What kind of a theorist are you that you do not understand the implications of your own theory?
…a square tube, not cylindrical; there’s a lot of “slack” to be taken up before tension could be established around the circumference. And let’s get this in perspective. The tube was some sixty metre square, made of box columns 0.36 metre square, themselves welded from steel sheet between seven and thirty millimetre thick. It’s hard to visualise at that scale so imagine it scaled down a hundred to one; a 0.6m by 0.6 metre cage of 3.6mm square-section uprights, themselves hollow, made of and laterally connected by steel foil about the thickness of human hair or paper. Oh, this “self-supporting tube” is also over four metre tall.
Still, you have a point; it might not collapse on its own (under earth gravity). Henceforth I’ll call the perimeter without the floor structures “relatively unsupported”.
– “if there is no floor there can be [no] pile of debris to exert lateral force” [my correction]
You need to think dynamically rather than statically. Does pressure in a pipe drop to zero when you open the tap at the end? No. For a start, each floor assembly supplied some “back pressure” as it was being destroyed, which is one reason the internal collapse proceeded slower than g.
Do you really want me to justify my convenient use of “null hypothesis”? I’d ask you to suggest another term, but as a Truther you’ll most likely propose the pejorative term “official story”. But my physical assessment has nothing to do with pronouncements by the US government, and everything to do with video records, witness testimony and records of the buildings’ design. Aircraft hit the buildings, knocked gaping holes, started major fires, and a little later the sections above these severely damaged and increasingly degrading zones began to accelerate downwards, apparently destroying the sections beneath. There is simply no reason to propose some hidden mechanism.
Chandler’s displacement measurements appear 16 seconds into this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk
The velocity against time plot appears at 30 seconds, with Chandler’s straight line already drawn over the data points. By drawing that straight line, Chandler assumes uniform acceleration. The line deviates from the data points, the straight line effectively dismissing the differences as errors of measurement. But Chandler had no basis to assume uniform acceleration of the roofline. His data points are already 0.2 seconds apart; he could have created a point for every frame. If those more numerous points described a smooth curve, that would be good evidence that the acceleration was actually varying, as we should expect in the system under consideration. But Chandler’s a Truther, so quite likely he didn’t want to provide anything that could be used against “The Missing Jolt”.
Sorry, I’m not going to muck about trying various possible assumptions in an attempt to determine your simplifying assumptions which led to your 4.1 m/s^2 figure. Post them and defend them if you wish, but you can’t just assert them and then attribute them to me; that’s cheating. We just don’t know what hit what, when, and in which order. But we’ve already calculated that even at 0.64 of g (and I think the start of the slope is shallower than that), there’s an excess of energy available for destruction.
The discussion is not getting anywhere because you are running away from the substantive point of the dynamics of the collapse.
Nobody is querying my calculations so no need to defend them. And I am not attributing them to you. They do, however, model YOUR theory so if you disagree say why. You have all you need to check the numbers so no need to try out anything. A very feeble excuse as it only takes a few minutes. Why am I not surprised?
You say āWe just donāt know what hit what, when, and in which order.ā You surprise me;
so what did you base your theory on?
Your criticism of Chandler accusing him of deliberately choosing the time interval to hide jolts is wrong. Jolts or measurement errors, you canāt get away from the fact that over the 3 second measurement interval the acceleration was constant with a 99.8% determinance coefficient. During the first 6 measurement intervals (1.2 seconds) the building fell 2 floors ā so enough resolution to reveal jolts if there were any.
If your theory was correct the graph of time vs velocity would be a curve. Enough time wasted on this so I am bowing out.
– “Nobody is querying my calculations”
I am questioning – probably your physical model rather than your calculations, but since you won’t provide details, I cannot know…
– “I am not attributing them to you. They do, however, model YOUR theory”
That is merely your assertion, and doublespeak to boot.
– “so what did you base your theory on?”
That by falling at about 2/3g (on average) the top section was releasing more than enough energy to seriously damage floor structures at or near the damaged zone, and/or decouple them from uprights.
– “Your criticism of Chandler accusing him of deliberately choosing the time interval to hide jolts is wrong”
How do you know? Are you Chandler? Are you his analyst? Chandler’s stuff is interesting and rather weird.
– “Jolts or measurement errors, you canāt get away from the fact that over the 3 second measurement interval the acceleration was constant with a 99.8% determinance coefficien”
Nonsense. If Chandler had been tracking an object freely falling through still air he’d have been justified in assuming constant acceleration. But he was tracking a collapsing building; the resistance to descent is certain to vary, so the data points can only be taken at face value, with error margins estimated only by evaluation of the measurement apparatus.
– “so enough resolution to reveal jolts if there were any”
So you smooth Chandler’s wiggly data into a straight line thereby discounting any jolts, and then say it has enough resolution to reveal jolts if they existed! I can hardly believe you wrote that!
– “If your theory was correct the graph of time vs velocity would be a curve”
Your assertion; not mine. You started all this by claiming there wasn’t enough energy without explosives. I disproved that, and I wasn’t attempting anything more detailed.
– “Enough time wasted on this so I am bowing out”
I’m sorry you feel you’ve wasted your time. I’d have thought it would be good news to discover that the buildings weren’t necessarily rigged with explosives as well as being hit by aircraft, but it takes all sorts, I suppose.
Courtesy of Tony Gosling. I’ve not had time and won’t get time this morning to listen to it.
THE LEGACY OF FRAN ANDERSON & THE DEEP STATE >>
with Susan Lindauer
EPISODE #259 – AIRED: 01-14-2017
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=174613#174613
This comment thread gives me a headache whenever I dip into it.
You can argue forever about what actually happened on 9/11 with regard to the physics (and we will probably never know during our lifetimes). You have to look at the political side of things if you want to figure out 9/11 (I believe, for instance, that I mentioned the anthrax attacks a few months back).
When it comes to politics, and all that’s happened since (we now live – again for an instance – in almost complete police states) it’s almost certain that 9/11 was an inside job.
I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise?
Rob, just the fact that they blamed al Qaeda makes 9/11 an almost inside job, but that was just the cover story. The redacted pages and the blocked civil suits in the UK all implicate Saudi Arabia, which is the source of al Qaeda and a key US ally. Then Springmann’s revelations show that Saudis much like and possibly including the hijackers were infiltrated onto US soil by the CIA, and multiple investigations into them were blocked from on high. The US and NATO continue to exploit such extremists – Libya, Syria etc.
The anthrax attacks were clearly false-flag. The extent to which 9/11 itself was false flag or just convenient is why proper investigation is needed.
And that’s my point. The physics of the Twin Tower collapses is all long since done – flimsy construction, poor fire protection, serious damage, extensive fire, structural failure, gravity. But the “Truth Movement” is completely dominated by demolition theorists, who gang up to bad-mouth and bully any who have the sense to see it. They police the entire Truth Movement and keep it utterly at odds with the international academic and engineering communities. They attack the reputations of prominent critics of government and campaigners for peace such as Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman. This single issue campaign discredits the movement and serves as the major obstacle to proper investigation.
Looking at many of the comments you might think that NIST were public enemy number one. A bunch of publicly funded engineers, for God’s sake. OK, they played down the weaknesses of the Twin Towers, but no way are they the major culprits they’re made out to be. Demolition is a crazy diversion that gets everyone shooting at the wrong targets. It’s a Grade A distraction. Just look at who it’s used against – Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Michio Kaku, Julian Assange… With so much promotion from Right-wing US Talk Radio Tea Party sites, and a “friendly fire” casualty list like that, you’d think people would begin to suspect, but apparently not…
“And thatās my point. The physics of the Twin Tower collapses is all long since done……”
The reality is that there is more to the physics than you realise.
So you keep saying, Nikko, but the international physics and engineering communities don’t agree with you.
Please explain this.
I know several engineers here and abroad who would not agree with you. Which international communities would not agree with me?
So far as I know, no university, nor any scientific or engineering body in the world has declared that the fall of the Twin Towers required explosives, unless we include A&E9/11 Truth. That includes universities of countries politically opposed to the United States. Conversely, the University of Edinburgh has stood by a professor who has said the Twin Towers could have fallen from fire alone, without the aircraft impact damage.
Not Russia, nor China. Not even Iran, Saudi Arabia or Cuba. The Saudi press has said it was demolition, but not Saudi physicists or engineers.
You are back tracking Clark. What scientific and engineering communities came up specifically in support of the official narrative.
Nikko, I feel quite confident in saying that the great majority of engineers and physicists do not think in terms of an “official” explanation, and that if called upon to support one a fair proportion would look for means of rebellion just on principle. The idea is rather quaint.
Indeed, there is no “official” model of the collapse sequences beyond initiation. NIST left the matter there, merely referencing Bazant’s early paper which purports to show that the gravitational potential energy greatly exceeds energy required for complete destruction, even through the path of greatest resistance.
I feel equally confident that if there was a glaring deficiency of energy as you claim, it would be a matter of hot debate within those communities. It is not a obscure part of science, so the available participant base would be very large indeed; tens of millions at minimum, and thus impossible to suppress.
“You can argue forever about what actually happened on 9/11 with regard to the physics (and we will probably never know during our lifetimes).”
It is not true. All proper engineers and architects know it was brought down by explosives.
There is hope here towards the end of my review of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling in La La Land. It is a must read. Thanks.
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/lost-in-la-la-land-starring-emma-stone/
John Goss, please define “proper engineers and architects”.
The vast majority of architects and engineers all over the world do not support demolition of the Twin Towers. Even many of A&E9/11 Truth voice concern primarily over the collapse of Building 7 and say nothing about the Twin Towers. A&E9/11 Truth make up a small fraction of one percent of architects and engineers worldwide.
Please share the review too. š
@ Clark January 15, 2017 at 21:02
‘ā āand looks out, looks one way and sees both Towers STANDING; looks back and one has collapsedā.
What? You mean he was looking the wrong way, didnāt hear the collapse and was gawping at WTC1 for so long he failed to notice the collapse of WTC2? Pull the other one; itās got bells on.’
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062308_dead_bodies.htm
‘…Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.
“When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor,” said Jennings.
“The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.
“I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down – all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in “total ruins”….’
So, Jennings: ‘..there was an explosion and the landing gave way..’
You: There was no exploosion.
Jennings: ‘…”The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.,,’
You: ‘There was no explosion’ (so what blew Jennings and Hess back?)
You: WTC 2 had already fallen before the stairs ‘collapsed’ (directly contradicting Jennings, who was actually there, unlike you).
But you still won’t take it in; Jennings is a liar, Jennings memory was playing tricks; Jennings can’t be believed because he would have been in shock; but Clark and his trusty crystal ball KNOWS what happened. Evidence? Who needs evidence, when they have a trusty crystal ball and a fertile imagination?
Ah, so you had to go to Alex Jones’ Right-wing Tea Party site PrisonPlanet to find that edit did you? What a surprise! Are YOU a Right-winger, Paul?
Yes, as I said before, Jennings’ testimony is contradictory, eg “the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up” versus “when the explosion happened it blew us back”. Likewise, his spontaneous account, “look one way, the building was there, look the other and the building was gone” versus his reply when asked if both the Twin Towers were still standing.
There’d be no point murdering a man who keeps contradicting himself. Just point to his other testimony; much cooler.
No, I didn’t have to go to Alex Jones site; I went there because you refuse to comprehend what was in the video I linked to, so I figured if I could find a transcript you would have less excuse to misunderstand it.
But one thing I should warn you about – never go swimming! You wriggle and squirm so much, and large fish would automatically think you were a worm…
And by the way, from your comments below, it seems you still purport to believe that the aircraft were hijacked; pitiful, really.
Right, here’s the video of Jennings’ statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA
And here’s the relevant piece of his testimony, after what Jennings described as an explosion and the sixth floor landing giving way beneath him:
– “After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark. It was dark, and it was very, very hot. Very hot. Um, I asked Mr Hess to test the ‘phones, as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me; I saw er, police cars, on fire, buses on fire, ah I looked one way [looking to his left], the building was there, I looked the other way [nodding to his right right] it was gone”.
9/11 2001 was a bright, sunny day. The power had failed and the lights had gone out – probably as the sixth floor landing was destroyed (Jennings is slightly vague but this seems to be his meaning), but it was the dust clouds from the collapses that reduced the daylight. Jennings couldn’t see out until he broke the windows, so presumably dust had obscured the windows. Jennings said there were buses and cars on fire. It sounds very much as if one collapse had occurred by then. Jennings said it was very, very hot, so presumably WTC7 was on fire by then. From WTC7, looking left is consistent with looking at WTC1, and Jennings looked left as he said “the building was there”. He nodded right as he said “I looked the other way it was gone“, consistent with looking toward WTC2.
His contiguous account ends there. Later, he recounts talking to firefighters and being on the north side of WTC7, from which neither of the Twin Towers could have been seen. He says they ran away twice as each Tower fell, but he also said he found that out later and didn’t know what was going on at the time.
He does describe the collapse of the sixth floor landing as an explosion, and of being blown back, but he recounts conversation with Hess so he wasn’t deafened. I recounted many pages back how I accidentally blew up a lead-acid battery on charge; I was deaf for about half an hour. Also, Jennings was not hit by shrapnel. It seems unlikely that he was near the detonation of a demolition charge.
Jennings’ account is rather vague and fragmentary, as is usual from people in such traumatic circumstances. I certainly don’t think he was lying. But piecing it all together, I feel pretty sure that the collapse of the sixth-floor landing seemed like an explosion, but was actually caused when WTC2 collapsed, also knocking out the electrical supply.
@ Clark January 16, 2017 at 01:48
There you go again – you admit he said he ‘looked one way and the building was there, looked the other way and it was gone’; note, ‘it’, ‘the building’; not ‘the other building’. SO both Towers were standing when the floors exploded.
You say he wasn’t injured by shrapnel – how do you know? Remember, after the fire crew led him out of WTC 7, he couldn’t walk, and was told to crawl, but to get away from WTC 7.
Now it was dark on the 8th floor (there was no mention of it being dark or hot when they first got up to the 8th floor, when he saw steaming cups of coffee on the table. So it is reasonable to suppose that heat and dust from explosions in WTC 7 (he experienced the stairs exploding, but I believe it reasonable that other explosions occurred in WTC 7, which would cause heat and dust.
BUT, principally, ‘he looked one way and THE building was there; looked the other way and IT was gone’ means the building. WTC 2, was still standing AFTER the stairs exploded. He is also on record as saying BOTH TOWERS WERE STANDING when they made it back to the 8th floor.
Neither of these statements contradicts each other, that he ‘looked one way’ and the building was there, looked the other way and IT was gone’, and his statement that both Towers were still standing.
It’s SOOO simple; you have accepted he has said both things, but you still keep on that the collapse of WTC 2 caused the stairs to collapse.
Sure, when you were deafened temporarily by the exploding gases from the battery, you were right next to the blast; Jennings was not.
You may well ‘..I feel pretty sure that the collapse of the sixth-floor landing seemed like an explosion, but was actually caused when WTC2 collapsed, also knocking out the electrical supply.’, but your ‘feeling’ does not trump Jenning’s first hand testimony.
– “You say he wasnāt injured by shrapnel ā how do you know? Remember, after the fire crew led him out of WTC 7, he couldnāt walk”
Well here he is, apparently about the time the exclusion zone around WTC7 was set up. He can hear and walk, he isn’t bandaged and his suit and glasses seem to be intact:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XOK-r80nr8
He does, however, seem stressed and traumatised. He said he thought he wouldn’t survive. So I wouldn’t be surprised if his memories of the event were a bit jumbled.
Barry Jennings accounts are really quite confused. At 1:12 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCUu8ctLFuU
he said that he wanted to get out of Building 7 as fast as he could, and jumped down flights of stairs in getting to the sixth floor. If neither Tower had fallen, why was he so frightened at that point, and why was he using the stairs rather than the freight elevator he’d used before? The earliest explosion he mentions refers to the destruction of the landing on the sixth floor, so presumably it wasn’t explosions that had scared him. According to NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 289 (referenced in the video linked above), Jennings and Hess had gone to use the freight elevator but the power failed, and that that was when WTC2 fell, the destruction of the staircase occurring when WTC1 fell. This scenario seems to make the most sense, since it explains why Jennings wasn’t using the elevator and why he was scared, and includes enough time for fire to have made WTC7 “very, very hot” by the time Jennings got back up to the eighth floor.
I doubt that anything definite can be gained from such confused and contradictory accounts, but for the same reason it seems unlikely that he was murdered, especially while under the supervision of medical staff.
@ Clark January 16, 2017 at 04:53
NIST’s account isn’t worth a plugged nickle; their job was to cover up the true causes of collapse.
Barry Jenning’s first-hand account is worth immeasurably more than your ‘suppositions’.
‘…but for the same reason it seems unlikely that he was murdered, especially while under the supervision of medical staff.’
Search about the very strange and convenient death of General Smedley Butler in hospital; and of Joan River’s death in a bizarre ‘accident’ in totally illegal circumstances, within two months of saying Michelle Obama was a ‘Tranny’. Her daughter got a reputed 8-figure out-of-court settlement from the clinic.
And look at Princess Di, and her treatment by the French medics!
I’m sure you have heard about doctors assisting in torture sessions (even joining in), so it is not too OTT to speculate that yes, some doctors and medical staff will murder their patients.
There is no evidence they did in the case of Jennings, but it would have been hugely inconvenient for Jenning’s testimony to surface after the final NIST Report: stairs exploding while Towers still up, and walking over dead bodies.
Jennings entered WTC 7 shortly after it had been evacuated which would’ve been after 0937. The South Tower collapsed at 0959. There can’t be any doubt that the “explosion” Jennings thought he experienced was the South Tower collapsing and that it was this that damaged WTC 7. WTC 7 didn’t collapse for another 5 hours or so which makes the idea of explosive demolitions taking place then even more ludicrous. Jennings has also claimed to have seen the wrecked lobby but only to have experienced the sensation of stepping over dead bodies. The video footage of the lobby we’ve already had a link to show the lobby wrecked but no sign of any bodies.
Paul, you seem very much to work backwards from conclusions you have predetermined. The world is highly complex; it doesn’t all fall neatly into good people saying true things and bad people doing evil, but, I’m sorry to say, this good-versus-evil model seems to be how you see things. No meaningful discussion is possible with you unless you can maintain open-mindedness.
I don’t take any account at face value. I give credence to NIST’s interpretation of Jennings’ account because (1) something must have scared him and (2) he used the stairs instead of the elevator he rode up in.
Now, you can come up with “maybe this and maybe that” which “explains” Jennings’ fear and use of the stairs in a manner consistent with your predetermined conclusions, but I will not be interested. The point of my existence is not to gratify your personal desire to impose your beliefs upon others; I was subjected to far too much of that during my religious upbringing.
Kempe, I think the timeline you’ve outlined can’t work.
John Goss, between us, we really seem to have hit a nerve. The demolition theorists seem to want to keep attention well away from Susan Lindauer’s first-hand testimony about CIA foreknowledge. That testimony is absolutely damming to the CIA. They knew the attacks were coming; knew they would involve hijacking commercial flights, and knew that the World Trade Center would be a target.
Yet the CIA did nothing. They put no precautions in place, and when those aircraft were known to be hijacked they did nothing to evacuate the WTC site.
So, Susan Lindauer speaks out – who should we go after? Spooks or engineers?
John, you’ve worked with engineers all your life. A really evil bunch, were they?
Yeah, leave the spooks. Get the engineers! String’em up!
Right, RobG?
Bastard engineers, with all their calculations and log tables, diagrams and shit. I don’t understand all that stuff. Bastard college lecturers and professors with all their books and long words I don’t understand. Physicists, architects – well paid egg-heads. Worthless, the lot of ’em.
THESE are the real traitors, along with firefighters and cops. Lock’em all up; they can consider themselves lucky they’re not shot. Billionaire Trump and loudmouth Alex Jones are my heroes.
@ Clark January 15, 2017 at 23:22
‘…knew they would involve hijacking commercial flights,…’
Evidence? They knew that hijackers would be BLAMED. they knew that very well, because they had carefully set up the false ‘Red Herring’ trails, in conjunction with their ‘allrged hijackers’ (it is really worthwhile to watch ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg , to see the ridiculous lengths the ‘alleged hijackers’ went to to make sure their behaviour was so outrageous that they would definitely be noticed (the last thing genuine terrorists would do before an operation).
It is well worth watching, even if you have watched it many times before.
@ Clark January 15, 2017 at 23:22
‘…knew they would involve hijacking commercial flights,…’
Evidence? They knew that hijackers would be BLAMED. they knew that very well, because they had carefully set up the false ‘Red Herring’ trails, in conjunction with their ‘alleged hijackers’ (it is really worthwhile to watch ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg , to see the ridiculous lengths the ‘alleged hijackers’ went to to make sure their behaviour was so outrageous that they would definitely be noticed (the last thing genuine terrorists would do before an operation).
It is well worth watching, even if you have watched it many times before.
‘9/11 Building 7 – Martin Noakes’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMq1PiUbf-M
‘9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws
Yeah I’ve seen that several times. He has no direct knowledge. Just keep recycling the same few factoids. Then wonder why I still accept hijacking.
Behrooz Sarshar
Douglas Cochrane
Any comments?
ā¦āā¦āāā¦āāāāāāā¦āāā
āāāā āāāāāāāāāāā
āā©āāāāāāāāāā©āā©āā
Either by design or happenstance many of the participants of this forum suffer from ODD (Obsessive Debunking Disorder).
Wouldn’t it be lovely, wouldn’t it be great, if all the people who frequent here were discussing the evidence each and everyone has read from the ONLY scientific forensic study and 500 page report compiled by the ONLY person to bring this evidence to a court of law. š
https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/01/9-11-truthers-part.html
If people weren’t so keen on generating bunk, there would be less need for debunking. Your Dr Judy generates reams of bunk, sorry to say.
@Thomas Potter
Why not give us something to get our teeth into? You’re the Dr Judy Woods expert – choose a facet of her work which you think is being ignored by the Truth movement, present it here and answer any questions arising. I for one will give you a fair hearing.
That’d be a …
ā¦āā¦āāā¦āā¦
āāāāāāāā
āā©āāāāā©ā
š š š š š
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
Discussing the evidence contained in Dr. Judy Wood’s book WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? is similar to shaking Holy ā Water on Satan’s Little Helpers. ? Why? Because they spring out of their dark black holes in the woodwork like hungry gnawing rats eager to consume the light of truth.
Mr Potter, a friend of mine wrote this book:
http://sarmed.netfirms.com/suhayl/
If you do not buy it, or at least request it from your library, then you are EVIL, like a demon.
OK?
Is your friend’s publication the most important book of the 21st Century as WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
This download is the Foreword and book review of “WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?” by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 – 2006 (35 years), plus the Author’s Preface.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf
https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/01/9-11-truthers-part.html
Dr. James Fetzer writes in response to the above article:
(1) Far from ignoring Judy Wood’s work, I promoted it by featuring her on my radio shows fifteen times. I gave her an unprecedented 3 hours to speak at the Madison 9/11 Truth Conference in 2007 and invited her to speak again at The Vancouver Hearings in 2012. She did not even bother to respond.
(2) Scientific reasoning requires taking into account new evidence and alternative hypotheses, but Judy Wood has ignored the findings of the US Geological Survey, which disclosed the presence of elements that, in quantity and correlation, are indicative of the use of nuclear devices.
(3) Those that appear to have been used were mini or micro nukes, which have a dialable radius and can be directed (in this case, upward). I am unaware of any aspect of the evidence that DEWs can explain that mini nukes cannot. Interestingly, by her definition, mini and micro nukes are DEWs.
(4) Neither Judy Wood and DEWs nor A&E911 are willing to talk about who was responsible and why. That is a telling sign. Check out AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016), moonrockbooks.com. For limited hangouts, the situation is clear cut.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
And now the truth for perceptive minds:
The facts of Dr. Fetzerās statement #1 refute Dr. Fetzerās statement #2. That is, Dr. Wood presented the USGS data at Dr. Fetzerās āconferenceā in 2007. Wasnāt Dr. Fetzer paying attention? Why hold a conference if the information presented is ignored by the host ā unless it is to cover up that very information?
The USGS data is also presented in Dr. Woodās book. So why is it that Dr. Fetzer is trying to convince the public that a) it is ānewā information and b) that Dr. Wood has not addressed this information? People with integrity would like to know. Item #3 on Dr. Fetzerās list is an attempt to re-frame Dr. Woodās work into something it is not. Dr. Wood presents evidence; she does not present a theory about a āDEW weaponā or any other weapon. Dr. Wood presents evidence. She does not promote a theory to āexplainā a theory. Dr. Wood presents evidence and evidence cannot be wrong.
Over the years, Dr. Fetzer has repeatedly attempted to muddle up statements made by Dr Wood in her book and elsewhere. Dr Fetzer often āshows upā when popular postings are made about this research (look at the volume of comments he made in a review of the book on Amazon). One can see how this āmuddle-upā and deliberate misdirection activity has evolved since 2005
Are there still discerning readers who can judge when they are being deliberately mislead?
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg
– “…the findings of the US Geological Survey, which disclosed the presence of elements that, in quantity and correlation, are indicative of the use of nuclear devices”
Would you post an authoritative link for that, please?
Maybe Dr Wood should remove the incorrect physics from her site, trim most of its pages substantially to that which is strictly relevant, and also rename her book, because the Towers went here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3b/20050601212330!September_17_2001.jpg
Zoom in; there are vehicles and people in there.
Why? You are missing the point. Dr. Fetzer has repeatedly attempted to muddle up statements made by Dr Wood in her book and elsewhere. In other words, it’s a Red Herring.
Some long time from now when an inquiry has proved that the twin towers and building 7 were brought down in a controlled manner it might dawn on certain people just how weak aluminium is. Until then, even if then, they will still be putting out the same unscientific support for NIST.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfHtrX4_Sxo
I hope Trump calls for a new investigation of the murder of JFK. What better way to discredit the CIA?
After the job is done with the JFK assassination, then there can be a new investigation of 9/11.
I doubt Trump has any desire to ‘sleep with the fishes’, so don’t hold your breath.
But two good books about it are ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’. by Wayne and Belzer, which look at just some of the string of deaths, ‘suicides’ and murders of people who had inconvenient information.
Also this video, in six parts, but all together here, is excellent, not just for JFK and RFK, but MLK and others:
Evidence of Revision (The assassination of America):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHb5X3fFhPw
While they are both interrelated Lysias I would prefer the 9/11 inquiry first for the simple reason that many people are still alive who lost loved ones and they are looking for closure. Not so many now connected with the Kennedy assassination. But they both need investigating.
One reason for putting the JFK case first is the way the CIA, through Senator Schumer, recently threatened Trump with the fate of JFK.
@ lysias January 17, 2017 at 20:33
I wouldn’t hold your breath. I doubt if Trump fancies ‘sleeping with the fishes’.
Two good books about the whole slew of suspicious deaths, ‘suicides’, and murders of people who had inconvenient information about the JFK assassination: ‘Hit List’ and ‘Dead Wrong’ by Wayne and Belzer; also ‘Me & Lee’ by LHO’s fiancee, Judyth Vary Baker (and linked book ‘Dr. Mary’s Monkey’ by Edward Haslam).
Also a six-part documentary (all 6 parts in one here): ‘Evidence of Revision (The assassination of America)’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHb5X3fFhPw
and an interview with James Files: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr4vgHsmNEk
@ 28 Jan, 2010 in War in Iraq by craig
‘…The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building…’
BUT: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
‘Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:…’
‘…Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:
āThe building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen doorāthis intense gridāand the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.ā
Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.
‘…As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense….’
BUT: Barry Jennings said the staircase in WTC 7 exploded whilst bothe Towers were still standing, so no kinetic energy from the collapsing Towers was available to explode the staircase.
– “The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.
Yes, both of the Twin Towers did survive the impacts without collapsing, though not for long enough.
– “ā¦The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the buildingā¦”
Craig’s first sentence was correct and the impacts did extensive damage to the entire structures. However, his imagination in his second sentence was wrong.
Benedict’s law: – “Nature always sides with the hidden flaw”.
Law of revelation – “The hidden flaw never remains hidden”.
Murphy’s Law Complete, Bloch 1985.
@ Clark January 18, 2017 at 13:12
‘….Yes, both of the Twin Towers did survive the impacts without collapsing, though not for long enough.
ā āā¦The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining { & nor do you} they would bring down the buildingā¦ā
So your and Craig’s IMAGINATIONS trump the scientific calculations…
‘….Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11….’
He (and the fiefighters and First Responders) had every right to be confidant the Towers would not collapse, because they didn’t have a clue the WTC was rigged with explosives and nano-thermate.
‘…Craigās first sentence was correct and the impacts did extensive damage to the entire structures. However, his imagination in his second sentence was wrong….’
Obviously wrong again. The ‘alleged plane impacts’ did not do damage to the entire structure. That idea is frankly laughable.
ā…..Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing…..’
Anyhow, at least, after God knows how many attempts on my part, you EVENTUALLY accept Jenning’s said the Towers were still standing, and that the staircase exploded, and blew them backwards, though now you fall back on ‘he must have been mistaken/confused’.
– “Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers…”
No. No such tests were carried out. It was a theoretical calculation. It apparently showed that a 707 would penetrate the perimeter, wings and all, and there’d be a terrible fire.
Grief, the Twin Towers were cheap, like the thousands of shock absorbers in place of cross-bracing so they wouldn’t sway in the wind too much. Every bit of their design was about saving costs. There’s no way they’d have trashed a 707 just to test the design.
@ Clark January 18, 2017 at 17:16
ā āAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineersā¦ā
‘No. No such tests were carried out. It was a theoretical calculation. It apparently showed that a 707 would penetrate the perimeter, wings and all, and thereād be a terrible fire.
Grief, the Twin Towers were cheap, like the thousands of shock absorbers in place of cross-bracing so they wouldnāt sway in the wind too much. Every bit of their design was about saving costs. Thereās no way theyād have trashed a 707 just to test the design.’
How do you know no such tests were carried out? Oh, I see, your trusty ‘crystal ball’ again.
‘…Thereās no way theyād have trashed a 707 just to test the design.’…’
But who claimed they did? There are other ways they can test the designs. But You have zero evidence – just a ‘gut feeling’ and of course your trusty crystal ball (and your preconceived notion that the WTC buildings weren’t rigged for controlled demolition – so any evidence that would seem to point to controlled demolition must be wrong, or disinformation, or confusion in the minds of the witnesses, no matter how many say there were multiple EXPLOSIONS in the WTC buildings).
Blimey, remind me – are we playing badminton or tennis?
– “But who claimed they did [trash a 707]?”
The A&E9/11Bullshit article says “Impact test”. That’s a test involving an impact, and no such impact test is recorded anywhere but on that A&E9/11Bullshit page. There were safety concerns when the Towers were proposed because of the previously untried design, so the PR people went to great lengths to (falsely) convince the public of the Towers’ safety. That’s why the designers did that theoretical study, which we’ve all already heard of and which was widely publicised. If they’d really crashed a 707, they would have released films and had hundreds of witnesses. Nothing, zilch, nada except that relatively recent A&E9/11Bullshit page. A&E9/11Bullshit simply made it up.
And, YET AGAIN, I DO NOT DENY EXPLOSIONS. That’s bold AND capitals, if that doesn’t get through to you there’s no stronger dose. But explosions dotted throughout the day can’t put a building into free-fall – the explosions all have to happen within a split second to do that.
There were all sorts of things blowing up due to all the FIRE. There were load of explosions, and loads of testimony of explosions. Even Barry Jennings said he though the explosions were cars blowing up because they were on fire.
Paul Barbara January 18, 15:28:
– “The āalleged plane impactsā did not do damage to the entire structure. That idea is frankly laughable”
Yes, they warped both entire structures. Doors were jammed in their frames and firefighters had to break them open. That’s apart from the damage in the ground floor lobbies which I know you attribute to bombs or demolition charges.
And no the aircraft didn’t bring the buildings down; not directly. The aircraft caused extensive damage and fire, which apparently caused structural failure at the damaged zones. That caused the top parts of the building to fall on the lower parts, resulting in total destruction.
And yes, Barry Jennings did say that, but all timelines that have Jennings observing both Towers still standing after the sixth floor landing collapsed are untenable, and his other observations of darkness, obscured windows and burning cars and buses contradict it. Jennings probably got confused, which is understandable.
@ Clark January 18, 2017 at 13:39
‘And yes, Barry Jennings did say that, but all timelines that have Jennings observing both Towers still standing after the sixth floor landing collapsed are untenable, and his other observations of darkness, obscured windows and burning cars and buses contradict it. Jennings probably got confused, which is understandable.’
And then you previously accused me of your behaviour:
@ Clark January 17, 2017 at 06:30
‘Paul, you seem very much to work backwards from conclusions you have predetermined. The world is highly complex; it doesnāt all fall neatly into good people saying true things and bad people doing evil, but, Iām sorry to say, this good-versus-evil model seems to be how you see things. No meaningful discussion is possible with you unless you can maintain open-mindedness…..’
That is precisely what you are doing – you do not believe Jenning’s ACCOUNT because it doesn’t fit your idea explosives and nano-thermate were used in WTC’s 1,2 and 7.
As for NIST’s ‘computer simulation’ of how WTC came down, is obviously ridiculously flawed, because they have the left-hand side (looking at a screen) collapsing in a way thet the real WTC 7 did not do – it came down essentially in good physical shape.
We have all seen the collapse many times; it is totally different from their rigged ‘computer simulation’, whilst understandably they refuse to disclose the input to their ‘simulation’ so it can be tested by others.
– “you do not believe Jenningās ACCOUNT because it doesnāt fit your idea explosives and nano-thermate were used in WTCās 1,2 and 7”
No, the reason I don’t accept Jennings’ account is that it contradicts ITSELF. He says the Towers were still standing, but that it had gone dark in WTC7 (the dust cloud), that he had to break the windows out before he could see (dust on the windows), and that loads of cars and buses were on fire. That’s all consistent with conditions AFTER at least one collapse, and INCONSISTENT with conditions before either collapse.
I said absolutely nothing about NIST’s computer simulation which I won’t trust until they release the data so that independent researchers can verify it. But that does not alter the fact that their interpretation of Jennings testimony makes more sense than what Jennings said in assorted interviews.
It’s YOU that’s cobbling his account. You have him zooming around like Superman, up and down WTC7’s elevators twice making enquiries in between, making multiple phone calls, descending seventeen flights of stairs in the dark, dragging himself back from the fall, reclimbing to floor eight and breaking windows out all before WTC2 fell, and then doing nothing for the next three hours without even noticing the fall of WTC1.
And you seem to have forgotten that I’m undecided about how WTC7 came down.
Paul, you should verify your sources. The A&E9/11Truth article you linked to claims:
– “Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707 […]. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”.
I’d never heard of this “impact test” and was pretty sure it never happened, so I followed the link to the source. “AE911Truth Staff” have distorted the quotes at HistoryCommons:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling
It was not an “impact test”, but the same old theoretical study we’ve all heard of before, and of which John Skilling said:
– “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed”
So, you’ve repeated and amplified bullshit.
John Goss, note that John Skilling, one of the two structural engineers who designed the Trade Center, said; “all the fuel would dump into the building”. So Skilling had presumably calculated that the wings, which contain the fuel tanks, would penetrate the perimeter.
‘… and that loads of cars and buses were on fire. Thatās all consistent with conditions AFTER at least one collapse, and INCONSISTENT with conditions before either collapse….’
But did he say the cars and buses were burning BEFORE the collapse, which happened an extremely short time after he broke the window out? I believe you will not find that is the case; but even if it was, that still does not trump his specifically saying both Towers were standing when he broke the window out.
And you should remember that over 100 First Responders (I believe 118) heard EXPLOSIONS both before and during the Towers’ collapses (and indeed, Barry Jennings tells us there were explosions in WTC 7 BEFORE the Towers collapsed.
‘….and then doing nothing for the next three hours without even noticing the fall of WTC1….’
On the contrary, he did the only thing he could do – tried to get the First Responders to rescue them, as they had no way to get out. Apparently the First Responders had a great deal of trouble locating them, that’s why they were stuck in WTC 7 for so long. And of course, you wandered previously what had spooked them – well, it was categoric phone calls to get the hell out, smartish.
But you should know this, surely?
@ Clark January 18, 2017 at 15:57
‘…ā āAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707 [ā¦]. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsingā.
Iād never heard of this āimpact testā and was pretty sure it never happened, so I followed the link to the source. āAE911Truth Staffā have distorted the quotes at HistoryCommons:…
Have A&E distorted the quotes at History Commons? Show me where.
‘…ā āAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707 [ā¦]. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsingā….’
Comprende? ‘…āAirplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers….’
The impact tests occurred ‘..during the design of the Twin Towers…’, that is in the late 1960’s or extremely early ’70’s.
A misunderstanding on your part, perhaps? The ‘impact tests’ did not happen in ’82, or even in ’93, but at the design stage of the Towers.
Actually, A&E say the impact tests occurred in 1964, so even earlier than I supposed in the design stage.
Follow the damn link A&E9/11
TruthBullshit cite for the source of the “impact test” – it says no such thing; A&E9/11 damn well made it up!Look, what’s the difference, Paul? A&E9/11 can write that there were impact tests, and I can write here that the Moon is made of green cheese, like this:
The Moon is made of green cheese.
but that doesn’t mean it is, and I hope you don’t start believing it just because it appears on a web page!
@ Clark January 18, 2017 at 19:04
What link? You didn’t give one.
The ‘impact Tests’ occurred, it is claimed, in 1964, so how can they link to an 80’s or 9o’s occurrence?
A&E don’t make stuff up, they use Science, and above all TRUTH.
History Commons refer to paper exercises, an analysis, which was claimed to have been done although none of the original calculations can be found. The only people referring to an actual physical test are AE911.
Such a test would have been a monumental undertaking and would certainly have been filmed and extensively photographed so where is the evidence? Witnesses? Photos? Film?
AE911 DO make stuff up, they do it all the time, and I think they’ve overstepped the mark this time though.
They’ve still got articles up implying, suggesting, or outright claiming that the collapses of the Twin Towers broke physical law unless explosives were used. There are links to Chandlers “Downward Acceleration”. I think that’s where John Goss gets it from. It’s couched as if it applies to the Twin Towers, but it “proves” that no structure that has ever stood can accelerate into collapse under its own weight. Tell that to my shed. And before a truther shouts “steel, steel”, the argument makes no reference to material.
Paul Barbara, January 18, 22:41, you asked – <em"What link? You didnāt give one".
OK. In your comment of January 18, 11:28 above:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-103/#comment-650185
…you linked to A&E9/11″Truth”:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
…which claims:
– “Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”
…and that link in the claim points here:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling
But nothing on that page supports the claim made of an “impact test”. It documents various emergency drills and engineers’ calculations. The closest I can get is a “computer simulation” in 1964, according to Guy Tozzoli, a former World Trade Center director, but in 1964 computer simulations were not what they are today:
– Earlier in his testimony, Tozzoli described a computer simulation performed back when the towers were still under construction. The simulation used a 707, the largest jet at the time, flying at 220 mph into one of the towers, he said.
– “The computer said it would blow out the structural steel supports along one side of the building completely to seven floors, and naturally there would be a large loss of life on those seven floors because of the explosion,” Tozzoli testified.
– “However, the structure of the building would permit the 50 floors or whatever it is above to remain and not topple because the loans would distribute themselves around the other three walls and then eventually be assimilated in the floors below.”
“Loans” should presumably read “loads”; possibly Freudian typesetting. History Commons got that from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020412234558/http:/www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nydril122460832nov12.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
So A&E9/11TruthStretchers-R-Us.
@ Clark January 19, 2017 at 01:48
Right: first, thanks for the links. Now the A&E article states (in part):
‘…Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds…………etc.’
They are clearly not the same thing, and A&E don’t say they are.
They don’t give a link to the 1964 tests, or explain what they amounted to.
You could of course ask them for more information – it is you, after all, who are ‘finding fault’ with their article.
So, they are referring to 1964 tests first, then go on to other calculations, to which they give the link.
No sleight of hand, no intent to deceive, just a superficial reading and understanding of their article by you (and apparently Kempe, who claims, without any evidence – who needs evidence when we have Kempe’s word for it? – that ‘AE911 DO make stuff up, they do it all the time, and I think theyāve overstepped the mark this time though.’
@ Clark January 19, 2017 at 01:48
Re ‘…ā āHowever, the structure of the building would permit the 50 floors or whatever it is above to remain and not topple because the loans would distribute themselves around the other three walls and then eventually be assimilated in the floors below.ā
Notice, it would destroy the steel supports of ONE WALL; no suggestion it would affect the interior columns; obviously a typo re ‘loans’; if all typos were ‘Freudian slips’, I don’t know what that says about commenters on here, including myself….
Paul, the A&E9/11 article says “impact test” and cites a source, but the source does not say “impact test”.
I don’t assume A&E9/11 intended to deceive. I expect they’re just like demolition theorists on this thread; if some snippet seems to support their assertions, they seize upon it, magnify it, and publicise it. It’s overzealousness.
But what can’t be forgiven is that they don’t correct and retract. Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” paper is blatantly wrong. It should be replaced with a very clear statement of retraction, so that everyone who follows the link sees the retraction instead of the original. Instead A&E9/11 have just left it sitting there, misleading non-technical readers, while A&E9/11 have gone on and built a replacement site and apparently forgotten about it.
Yes, the various calculations of aircraft impact all gave similar results. The Tower would still stand (and that proved true) but the perimeter would be breached (also true) letting the wings and their fuel tanks within (right again) starting an horrendous fire. The designers got all of that spot on.
But the designers left it there. By their own admission, they didn’t attempt to calculate the effect of fire upon the remaining structure.
I don’t blame them. They had only 1960s computers. The exact distribution of both damage and subsequent fire would have depended upon the precise details of the impact. Modern computing power can simulate hundreds of slightly different impacts and thousands of the possible resulting fire patterns, and present the likelihood of various outcomes. That was not an option in 1964, so I’m not surprised that they didn’t even attempt it. Would the company’s R&D department have been enthusiastic to fund expensive but inevitably inconclusive study that might suggest that the buildings could collapse? Or go public with the first-order result; “the buildings would stand after impact”? What would YOU expect, in the market-driven USA?
I only mentioned the “redistributing loans” typo because it seemed so ironic; the bane of the financial system, right there at the heart of the New York financial district – and it all came tumbling down…
Leslie Robertson the chief structural engineer on the WTC who did the calculations has said the scenario he worked on was that of a B707 lost in fog and looking for somewhere to land like the B25 that hit the Empire State. So that would’ve been an aircraft closer to its maximum landing weight and travelling at 180 mph. It’s unlikely that a B707 could manage 600 mph at low level, it would also exceed the overland speed restriction so why consider it?
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
Kempe, apparently John Skilling referred to a paper study that considered a 600mph impact. From that same History Commons page:
– The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: āThe buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707āDC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.ā However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.
Apparently NIST made reference to it, originally at the following link which no longer works:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71
Both studies found the same thing; that the aircraft would penetrate the perimeter – wings, fuel and all, so there’d be a major fire, but the building would remain standing. Well, that was exactly what happened. I have found no record of any attempt to calculate whether the fire would cause the damaged building to collapse.
http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/with-regards-to-philip-zelikow-what.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/Twnyq+(Cindy+Sheehan%27s+Soapbox)
Jon Gold
1/17/2017
‘If you donāt know who he is, Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Paul Sperry wrote, āthough he has no vote, (Zelikow) arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnessesā¦ In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.ā
Over the years, we have read several reports having to do with the āsuspicious behaviorā of Philip Zelikow (to put it nicely, you could say “criminal behavior”). As it states in the linked article āon October 9th, 2010, during āFreedom Watchā with Judge Napolitano, 9/11 Whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer alleges that during a lunch in Philadelphia, a 9/11 Commissioner told him that, āeverybody on the commission was covering for someone.ā The following week, Judge Napolitano asked Philip Zelikow to appear on the show to talk about this. He REFUSED.ā
I had read another story recently where Zelikow refused an āon-camera interview,ā and it occurred to me that I have seen him do things like refuse interviews or comments several times over the years. In the article that I read, it states āZelikow (they spelled it Zeleco, but I fixed it) declined an on-camera interview but says he pulled no punches and says the commission was well aware of the NSA’s findings about al Qaeda even if the raw intelligence wasn’t fully explored.ā
That is bullshit. The idea that they āpulled no punchesā or were āwell aware of the NSAās findings about al Qaedaā considering the lengths they went to avoid the NSA, is laughable…..’
It goes on…Zelikow refuses to answer questions….
He was in charge of making sure no genuine info got out, or even made it to the discussion stage.
I’m well aware that the 9/11 Commission report answered very little and that the vast majority of its source material remains classified. I therefore went to Wikipedia expecting to find that Zelikow was a rampant neocon. However, I was surprised to find this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zelikow#George_W._Bush_administration
– He is also named by sources such as Jack Goldsmith’s The Terror Presidency as an internal critic of the treatment of terrorist captives, and there was wide attention given to an address he made on this subject after leaving office in April 2007.
Based on speeches and internal memos, some political analysts believe that Zelikow disagreed with aspects of the Bush administration’s Middle Eastern policy.
As Counselor to Secretary of State Rice, Zelikow opposed the Bush administration Torture Memos. In 2006, Zelikow wrote a memorandum warning that the abuse of prisoners through so-called “enhanced interrogation” could constitute war crimes. Bush administration officials ignored his recommendations, and tried to collect all copies of the memo and destroy them.
Well, they say Hitler liked dogs….perhaps Wikipedia isn’t the best source for this sort of information…
Try: ‘PDF]The Zealots of Dominance: The Neocon Factor in 9/11 – SF911Truth.org ‘
http://www.sf911truth.org/neocons.pdf
Well, your expectations were right…. he is a rampant Neocon.
An interesting document (part of a book); I haven’t got time to go through it thoroughly, but I did note some good (and new to me) info.
Well I’ll give Zelikow three stars. One for opposing torture, and anyone who gets all copies of their memorandum rounded up for deletion has to earn two stars for that. He can have some black marks too, for working for Bush and helping orchestrate the 9/11 Commission cover-up.
No, YOU can give Zelikow 3*; I’d give him Life with no chance of parole.
– “…there was wide attention given to an address he made on this subject after leaving office in April 2007”
Well are you going to find it on YouTube and post a link or shall I? Anyone? Or a transcript? What did that memo say? Or maybe we shouldn’t because Bush was only pretending not to want us to…
Am I getting the hang of this?
It’s not just dogs that Hitler treated well, he also treated his subordinates like secretaries very considerately. They loved him for that. One of the secretaries, Traudl Junge, reported her experiences in her book Bis zur letzten Stunde ā Hitlers SekretƤrin erzƤhlt ihr Leben. This was one of the sources for the movie Der Untergang [Downfall].
Unlike Hillary Clinton. I know the father of a military officer who worked in the Clinton White House. The father tells horror stories about how awfully Hillary treated her military subordinates. Her contempt for people in uniform has often been reported, but in this case I can confirm it from a source.
Some will like this.
https://johnplatinumgoss.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/why-those-of-us-on-the-left-should-not-protest-against-donald-trump/
I note that the video you’ve linked is one of the versions that edits out the bits about Trump being a good friend of Larry Silverstein, that if he were president he’d have retaliated to 9/11 “very, very hard”, and where he describes 9/11 as like “Pearl Harbor”.
Isn’t Trump deceptive enough without you helping to sanitise his image? Why not link the full version? Truthers misleading other Truthers. Pah!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trump-swam-in-mob-infested-waters-in-early-years-as-an-nyc-developer/2015/10/16/3c75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
– As [Trump] fed the political machine, he also had to work with unions and companies known to be controlled by New Yorkās ruling mafia families, which had infiltrated the construction industry, according to court records, federal task force reports and newspaper accounts. No serious presidential candidate has ever had Trumpās depth of documented business relationships with mob-controlled entities
See, the difference between you and me, John, is that I think other readers should be offered a balanced view, whereas you like to offer a view that leads in a particular direction. It’s about whether you respect the reading public and credit them with enough intelligence to make their own decision, or if you think they’re just a load of “sheeple”.
Nicely put,Clark.
We shouldn’t be fooled by the picometre thick veneer of respectability that Trump has managed to spray over his gangster entourage. It will wear off rather quickly.
While the it is an enjoyable enough experience to watch the hubris of some who have an assumption of entitlement (Clinton/Bush/Blair spring to mind) experience their nemesis, one must question the manifest folly of endorsing an unadulterated, half-witted sociopath’s ascent to a position of such power. I don’t need prescience to foresee the kinds of disasters that this nascent dictator will bring about.
I notice that the article mentions George Soros. He is also quoted in the Guardian today. He says May won’t last, and he says that Brexit will be fudged into meaninglessness (or reversed)- both these assertions coincide with mu own feeling-that the instability brought about Brexit will produce a rapid retreat.
Has anyone else noticed the VERY rapid increases in food prices over the last few months? According to Soros, it is this that will sharpen minds. Price inflation, and opportunities and earnings deflation. Not a formula to create a successful government.
The position of people like Johnson, and Gove, and others almost exactly mirror Trump’s position. A bunch of opportunistic, reactionary charlatans and either vicious psychopaths or, like Gove, deluded by his own scintillating narcissism.
There will come a time when the only answer is a rope and a lamp post, and it might surprise you who will be seen swaying in the breeze.
DeepGreenPuddock, I’m seriously worried; history seems to be repeating itself. Long term deterioration of economic conditions cause widespread dissatisfaction, but populist politicians and the corporate media exploit their audience’s base tribalism to deflect blame onto minorities, encouraging average public mood to drift towards the Right.
It’s a repeated pattern in human history but the difference this time is that with unprecedentedly high population, resource depletion, pollution, climate change, industrial time-bombs like the 440 nuclear power reactors and a million tonnes of stored depleted uranium fluoride, plus of course our vast stockpiles of weapons – conventional, nuclear and biological – humanity may not get a further chance. We need to get smarter, faster than we’ve shown ourselves to be capable of.
Trump said he’d expand the US “defense” budget, didn’t he?
@ Clark January 20, 2017 at 11:35
‘DeepGreenPuddock, Iām seriously worried; history seems to be repeating itself. Long term deterioration of economic conditions cause widespread dissatisfaction, but populist politicians and the corporate media exploit their audienceās base tribalism to deflect blame onto minorities, encouraging average public mood to drift towards the Right….’
You’re perfectly entitled to be worried; everybody should be. And the endless wars, and ‘Strategy of Tension’ coninued from Gladio I to Gladio II, with ‘Terrorist Attacks’ and hoaxes, just with new ‘Patsies’ – Muslims blamed instead of the ‘Reds’.
If people are unaware of Gladio, they should read up on it, because the PTB are just continuing it to ‘justify’ wars and internal crackdowns on civil rights, as well as using the ‘Terrorist Threat’ to gather more and more information on all of us – knowledge is power, so the more they know about us, the easier it is to control us.
Just as in Indonesia with the fake .Communist Coup’, used to rid the country of five Nationalist generals and serving as a justification for a huge, brutal culling of the Left, Suharto was given lists of people to eliminate by the Americans; they did the same in Chile and other Latin American countries.
Post-war Germany also exposed a list of Germans to be eliminated by the Gladio secret forces of NATO; our ‘Intelligence Agencies’ will also have lists of dissidents and potential trouble makers to be eliminated or incarcerated when the inevitable SHTF.
I agree in principle, but Trump’s not going to help. His chosen vice-president is Pence, who supported the USA Patriot Act on its passage in 2001, and in 2005 called the act āessential to our continued success in the war on terror here at homeā. Pence is also coal and mining money, which may help explain how Trump can be so anti-Muslim.
@ Clark January 20, 2017 at 13:13
Trump is an assh*le, period.
But the ‘Hildabeast’ is worse; her credentials, and those of her ‘Hubby’ ‘Bill’ are very widely known.
But does ‘agreeing in principle’ include Gladio? You nicely sidestepped the issue, so can I ask you specifically are you aware of the CIA organised terror attacks?
This is extremely important, because the CIA/NATO are using the same blueprint for European atrocities and hoaxes.
Operation Gladio is well documented to have existed. Its extent, and which incidents were part of or associated with it, is a matter of ongoing debate. CIA terror, even involving death squads, is well established to have been perpetrated over decades.
However, “Islamic” terrorism is also well documented, and in the main the ideology that promotes it issues from Western-allied Middle Eastern states, principally Saudi Arabia. The US repeatedly has exploited this to their own ends, too, and I sometimes speculate that some vital links in such chains run through and/or close to the British royal family, and alliances forged at the time of the British Empire.
For each incident, the question can be asked, MIHOP, LIHOP or just unrelated? Even more complex to answer in this age of frequent subversion of computer and other communication systems. Also, the US drone policy is one of “decapitation”, extrajudicial assassination of leaders of armed groups. This leaves the group members running around like (armed) headless chickens, guided only by the violent ideology they were indoctrinated with. Even such otherwise random events can be exploited to the advantage of authoritarians, the commercially-driven tendency of news media organisations to sensationalise being very useful in the mosaic of propaganda.
Paul, in using the past tense above, I do not mean to imply that I think such things have stopped. Undoubtedly they are ongoing. However, each incident can only be examined in retrospect, and it takes time for evidence to emerge and be correlated. Meanwhile, the clandestine agencies (including but not limited to those of the US) are doing all they can to obfuscate, confuse and muddy the water.
I think what is needed is a clear set of guidelines and international laws concerning the running and oversight of secret “intelligence” agencies, because clearly these agencies are far more proactive than their “intelligence” designation suggests.
My apology for afterthoughts…
I didn’t really mean to sidestep; as you see, it took some lengthy commenting to give a reasonable picture of my position. I was just trying to keep it short.
Bad as the Clintons may be, I still don’t think Trump is likely help. He may change things a bit, but the patterns will re-establish themselves, as they have done under presidency after presidency. Trump is not a JFK.
Clark : For each incident, the question can be asked, MIHOP, LIHOP or just unrelated?
To the best of my knowledge, you are unique in arguing that WTC1 and WTC2 were LIHOP while WTC7 was MIHOP.
Node, thank you. I never thought much of being a conformist, even to minority consensus.
…I should point out that the range of possibilities I consider tenable is considerably broader than your summary, and my range of suspects goes way beyond al Qaeda and elements and/or infiltrators in the Saudi, US and Israeli governmental authorities.
– “…I never thought much of being a conformist”
…on the other hand, I get deep satisfaction when others conform to my own position. Such is the human condition; everyone thinks they’re better than everyone else, and that’s how war comes about.
Node, part of my thinking supporting that particular possibility is almost stupidly simple. WTC7’s collapse just looks like a controlled demolition, and the greater, final collapse achieved free-fall for a while, whereas the Twin Tower collapses both look like top-down destruction and never achieved free-fall.
Of course various matters count against demolition of WTC7 including its half second of descent at uniform velocity before acceleration, and the initial collapse of the mechanical penthouse. Some non-physics matters argue for, such as the various mentions that it might have to be “brought down”, and the exclusion zone; how long were they going to maintain that, and what conclusion did they envisage? “Oh we’ll just keep everyone out of the way; it’s bound to fall down at some point”.
Thinking this way, it seems more likely that the authorities did bring WTC7 down, fast and dirty. They had a 190 metre high unstable building right next to a disaster zone where they were trying to perform search and rescue operations. Masses of people including hundreds of seriously pissed-off firefighters and cops were desperate to search for their relatives, friends and colleagues.
“What are you doing with this fucking exclusion zone?”
“Oh nothing; just waiting for that building to collapse”.
Yeah, right.
If they weren’t rigging it for demolition, what were they doing with it all afternoon?
WTC7 damaged two other buildings when it fell, the Verizon building and Fiterman Hall. It could be worth looking into the funding for rebuilding and/or the compensation for those.
If they werenāt rigging it for demolition, what were they doing with it all afternoon?
Smuggling papers, gold and money? I dunno, anything but rigging it for demolition. They couldn’t possibly have done so in such a short time. They couldn’t even have sourced a demolition team in such a short time. And if they did, the demolition team couldn’t have been assembled, equipped and transported in such a short time. And if they were, they couldn’t have obtained detailed construction blueprints and planned the demolition sequence in such a short time. And if they did, they couldn’t have accessed the correct places and positioned and programmed the charges in such a short time. And even if all the above was somehow possible, there were police, security and firemen stopping people entering the building, and film crews surrounding the building, and fire and smoke inside the building.
You’ve got a problem, Clark. WTC7 looks like it was demolished. There is much supporting evidence that it was demolished. You concede as much. But if you concede that the collapse of WTC7 was pre-planned, it is inconceivable that the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 weren’t also pre-planned. Having had your mind changed once by some chancer, your won’t allow yourself to change it back again and believe in explosive demolition of the Twin Towers. Therefore you have invested in a ridiculous scenario where the Twin Towers fell due to plane crashes but WTC7 was a secret impromptu demolition.
There is a good reason why you are the only person who believes that.
Node, your attempt to enforce conformity will not work on me, not least because your argument is full of holes. If you argue for pre-rigged demolition of all three buildings, must accept the possibility that just WTC7 was pre-rigged, or that all preparations for post-rigging of WTC7 could have been made in advance, speeding matters considerably. I regard neither as likely, but from your own position both are inescapably possible. And I said “fast and dirty”, but you’ve based your argument on normal civil demolition with full planning, precautions and safety procedures, not emergency demolition as the military perform them. You have assumed non-cooperation from the authorities, which is inappropriate to my scenario above.
You have presented a classic straw man argument; you misrepresented my argument so you could knock it down, and the only reason to do that is to impress an audience.
No “concessions” are involved because I maintain an open mind. I have been presented with no direct evidence for demolition of the Twin Towers. Repeatedly I have been intellectually bullied and maligned as a conspirator. I have been presented with much bullshit such as gross misapplication of Newton’s laws and insistence that the Twin Towers were very sturdy, and some tentative circumstantial possibilities, but there is much better evidence for damage-fire-collapse. I’m disappointed, but unsurprised, that you think me so weak minded that my position is based on someone else’s say-so – but then I’m just one of the sheeple in your estimation.
Node, you need to admit to yourself that your mind closed and you stopped “investigating” 9/11 years ago, and began instead to propagandise for and enforce conformity to demolition theories. And that implies that you only pretend to want an open and thorough investigation. You can’t want investigation unless you’re prepared to accept its findings, but the only finding you’ll accept is demolition. What you actually seem to want is confession, which is what they extract at Guantanamo Bay.
If you argue for pre-rigged demolition of all three buildings, must accept the possibility that just WTC7 was pre-rigged, or that all preparations for post-rigging of WTC7 could have been made in advance, speeding matters considerably. I regard neither as likely, but from your own position both are inescapably possible.
And therein lies the futility of arguing with you. You think it is sufficient for there to be a possibility that something could have happened in order for it to be treated as a realistic scenario. It’s like arguing with a flat earther – no matter how logical the arguments put to him, he replies “but you cannot prove with 100% certainty that I am wrong, therefore my opinion is as valid as yours.”
No I do not have to accept a preposterous proposition.
Node, January 23, 00:01:
– “No I do not have to accept a preposterous proposition”
Node, January 22, 20:59:
– “if […] the collapse of WTC7 was pre-planned, it is inconceivable that the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 werenāt also pre-planned”
You seem to be fettered by assumptions that you either never noticed or have forgotten you made. For instance, how can you be sure that all aspects of 9/11 were perpetrated by a single homogeneous group?
How can I be sure the Sun doesn’t work like a spotlight, illuminating only some parts of the flat earth at any one time?
If the milk is delivered on time, it’s inconceivable that the post might be late.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories
– “According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.”
ā āAccording to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.ā
…. and do you think that your belief about the events of 9/11 should not be classified as a conspiracy theory?
Only a little of 9/11’s wave function has been collapsed through observation (Wigner’s Friend notwithstanding), and even its eventual real component probably won’t fit into my brain, assuming I even live long enough. I sympathise with your desire for certainty, but disagree with your way of attempting to achieve it.
Look, there’s a problem. On a YouTube vid last night the sidebar presented me with an apparently endless list of clips of Truthers essentially disrupting public meetings that featured Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky, insisting upon arguments oin physics that I know to be false. Julian Assange and Michael Moore were also targetted. I’d seen this sort of thing before, but I didn’t realise there was so much of it.
Do you think I’m wrong to worry?
ā¦. and do you think that your belief about the events of 9/11 should not be classified as a conspiracy theory?
Node, that’s a question about use of words. I think “hacker”, “anti-Semitic” and “conspiracy theory” are all misapplied, but I have to live with it; we all do. Obviously, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Equally obviously, there is a “conspiracy theorists’ mindset”. I also object that in specifying anything pertaining to a specific person, I have to specify whether they (note the inappropriate plural) are or were male or female. Sorry, some things are beyond my control.
Now what about all these Right-wing hit pieces?
ā¦. and do you think that your belief about the events of 9/11 should not be classified as a conspiracy theory?
Not particularly; what other people call things is beyond my control. I both develop and eliminate possibilities on the basis of evidence, so I have a range of theories rather than just one. I try very much not to implement what could be described as an outlook ratchet, which involves deciding the conclusion, and then criticising, ignoring or encouraging others’ suggestions on the basis of popularising that conclusion.
You clearly want to kill my “fast, dirty demolition for safety” suggestion because it’s a threat to your Twin Tower demolition theory, and for that reason you attack my confidence, which has the additional advantage of demonstrating to your audience what will happen to them should they step out of line. For the same reason you ignore the obvious contradictions in Paul Barbara’s interpretation of Jennings’ account. Likewise you remain silent about obviously fake physics. It’s quite obvious that you’ve decided which way you want discussion to move, and that you’ll use any means available to achieve that.
And you’re avoiding other apparently conspiratorial behaviour. Demolition theory is being used by Right-wing US talk radio and websites in an attempt to discredit prominent figures of the anti-war alternative media. This says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of demolition theory, but nevertheless you seem to want to avoid the issue. Somehow, encouraging support for demolition theory has become more important to you than campaigning against war, and that is seriously odd and rather worrying.
He is a terrorist, I am a freedom-fighter
He is a conspiracy theorist, I develop and eliminate possibilities on the basis of evidence, so I have a range of theories rather than just one.
You repeatedly use the label “conspiracy theorist” to mock and disparage other posters. You did it to me earlier today. Two questions :
1) Bearing in mind the history of the label, how does it fit with your sanctimonious bleating about debating honesty?
2) Bearing in mind that the label is equally applicable to you, are you not a hypocrite?
Node, I wrote a somewhat lengthy reply but didn’t post it.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
I’ve just found a video of Hess shouting from a window of the burning WTC7. Hess appears at about 1 minute 50 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZduP7HTM3cg
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
Why burden your collective minds with conclusive, overwhelming, and indisputable evidence of magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions* turning the World Trade Center complex into fine dust smaller than human red blood cells?** After all, it might be, it could be, and it may be, are far more entertaining than hard evidence. So without evidence to support these claims, there are those who “believe” that 236 outer columns plus 47 core columns (up to 5-inches thick) were cut by “some type of explosive or combination of explosive” at the exact same moment on every floor? That’s 110 floors in 8 seconds! š This violates basic principles of heat transfer and gas dynamics! The evidence eliminates heat and kinetic energy being responsible and distracting discussion away from this evidence and into unsupported supposition is the prime directive of the cover-up.
Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up?
*WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, Chapter 17, section I, page 365, third line from the top.
World Trade Center Dust – Its Potential to Interact with Artifacts & Works of Art
**https://www.si.edu/MCI/downloads/articles/wtc_dust.pdf
(Oh grief. Just when you think things just couldn’t fall any further…)
Gas dynamics! YCNMIU!
@ Clark January 21, 2017 at 14:20
‘Operation Gladio is well documented to have existed. Its extent, and which incidents were part of or associated with it, is a matter of ongoing debate. CIA terror, even involving death squads, is well established to have been perpetrated over decades.
However, āIslamicā terrorism is also well documented, and in the main the ideology that promotes it issues from Western-allied Middle Eastern states, principally Saudi Arabia. The US repeatedly has exploited this to their own ends, too, and I sometimes speculate that some vital links in such chains run through and/or close to the British royal family, and alliances forged at the time of the British Empire.
For each incident, the question can be asked, MIHOP, LIHOP or just unrelated? Even more complex to answer in this age of frequent subversion of computer and other communication systems. Also, the US drone policy is one of ādecapitationā, extrajudicial assassination of leaders of armed groups. This leaves the group members running around like (armed) headless chickens, guided only by the violent ideology they were indoctrinated with. Even such otherwise random events can be exploited to the advantage of authoritarians, the commercially-driven tendency of news media organisations to sensationalise being very useful in the mosaic of propaganda.’
Right; I’ve brought the discussion forward, lest it got lost in the backwoods of past comments, because of it’s importance.
‘..Operation Gladio is well documented to have existed. Its extent, and which incidents were part of or associated with it, is a matter of ongoing debate. CIA terror, even involving death squads, is well established to have been perpetrated over decades.’
Gladio’s extent is NOT a matter of ongoing debate, unless people like me bring it up.
Can you give me a link to where it is ‘up for debate’? No, I thought not. The MSM will not touch it with a bargepole, though the old BBC did do a very good three-part series on it ‘back in the day’ (before they became completely compromised).
Gladio was exposed by Edouard Dupre, then France’s (Socialist) Minister of the Interior, in 1947.
Also in 1947, in Austria, Theodor Soucek and Dr. Hugo Rossner were sentenced to death for their part in the Gladio, but after servinng a short stint in prison were pardoned inexplicably bu Austrian Chancellor Theodor Korner.
In Germany in 1952Gladio was again exposed, by Hans Otto, who told police the Gladio units had been set up by ex-Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, who remained sheltered in Vatican City.
In 1953 Sweden’s Gladio was exposed; Otto Halibberg confessed, but bragged that nothing would happen to him. He was proved right; the case was dropped.
Three or four Turkish coups followed, all Gladio-led, as was the Greek Colonels coup.
So, Clark, essentially there is no debate; the facts are out there, with the CIA being exposed as the murderous bunch of Luciferian c*nts that they are.
‘…However, āIslamicā terrorism is also well documented…’
I’m glad you put Islamic in punctuation marks. Is “Islamic” terrorism well documented? I will grant you suicide bombers in Israel is well documented, but elsewhere? Can you linkk to some (and I don’t mean @False Flag’ ops where Muslims have been used by Mossad or Western Intel agencies.
Come up with some ‘slam dunks’.
By the way, although I have read a number of books on Gladio, if you really want top class info, read Paul L. Williams’ ‘Operation Gladio’, from where I have quoted the above info. It is a goldmine of info, even for an old campaigner like me.
From Joseph Trento’s Secret History of the CIA:
And that, friends, is the CIA.
@ lysias January 25, 2017 at 00:02
Good quote, Lysias. And as well as Angleton, many of the other top CIA were ‘Staunch Catholics’.
Pope John Paul I was poisoned by the CIA’s Gladio (seen ‘In God’s Name’ by David Yallop), and I suspect Pope John XXIII was also assassinated by induced stomach cancer after he upset the CIA with his friendly overtures to Russia.
JP I had to be silenced immediately, thus the risky use of poison, because the following day he was due to make massive changes, totally clearing the Augean Stables that were (and remain) the Vatican.
@ Clark January 23, 2017 at 18:48
‘…For the same reason you ignore the obvious contradictions in Paul Barbaraās interpretation of Jenningsā account. Likewise you remain silent about obviously fake physics. Itās quite obvious that youāve decided which way you want discussion to move, and that youāll use any means available to achieve that….’
WHAT ‘obvious contradictions’? Pray explain.
And it is not an ‘ interpretation of Jenningsā account’, it is what Jennings himmself said.
Pull yourself together, and try, once in a while, to get things straight.
But I HAVE got things straight about Jennings. Work it out for yourself. Everything he said happened did happen; he just remembered some of them in the wrong order. That HAS to be the case for the events he recounted to make sense; he even described them in slightly different orders at various parts of his interviews. Give the man a break; he thought he was going to die, and he was very nearly killed on floor six. Assess his testimony with compassion, rather than insisting upon these overly literal interpretations which make him seem self-contradictory.
Look, Paul, you have to start getting this sort of stuff right. It’s pointless just going for the most sensationalist interpretation of every snippet you encounter, because when people like me follow them up and find them to be empty, we are less likely to take seriously your subsequent points. Life’s just too short, time is too tight, and I’m sorry but there’s nothing anyone can do about that. I can’t keep following up dozens of false leads; it’s up to everyone to filter and validate their own contributions. And there’s so much chaff that you have to be quite strict.
@ Clark January 25, 2017 at 00:30
‘…Look, Paul, you have to start getting this sort of stuff right. Itās pointless just going for the most sensationalist interpretation of every snippet you encounter, because when people like me follow them up and find them to be empty, we are less likely to take seriously your subsequent points…..’
Cast off your blinkers, at least temporarily.
You see, I HAVE got things right; I have pointed out what Barry Jennings said.
You, in your ‘wisdom’, assume he remembered them in the wrong order, because that is the only way for your pre-conceived idea to be possible (floors collapsing because of falling debris from WTC 7, the furthest from WTC 7:
‘…Everything he said happened did happen; he just remembered some of them in the wrong order. That HAS to be the case for the events he recounted to make sense;…’
(From your previous post): ‘…Assess his testimony with compassion, rather than insisting upon these overly literal interpretations which make him seem self-contradictory….’
Tugging at the heart strings, and how dare I defile the memory of Barry Jennings =- but of course IO’m not – but you are, saying he was mistaken. When someone gives evidence, one is expected to take it literally; he was no fool, and things like he went through stick in the memory.
You are like NIST – if the facts get in the way of your narrative, you omit them or part of them, or you distort them.
See m,y next post.
Clarke, you asked me some time ago to give a link re the shear studs NIST ommitted.
I hope the following helps:
‘NEW WTC 7 FINDINGS: NIST CRIMINALLY MANIPULATED COMPUTER INPUT DATA; EXPLOSIONS AND EXTREME HEAT IGNORED; KEY VIDEOS CUT SHORT’:
https://isgp-studies.com/911-wtc-7-collapse-nist-failure-to-disprove-controlled-demolition-thermate#shear-studs1
‘…Confirmed: NIST also omitted shear studs
Note: This section is a January 2016 update on the shear stud issue, based on a tip from Tony Szamboti – whom, by the way, I never conversed with before finishing this article and praising his work.
The fact that NIST did not include a basic reservation in its final WTC 7 report as to whether or not shear studs were present on girder A2001 is very suspicious, because the situation was not resolved at all. As it turns out, NIST had good reason to make it look as if the shear studs were not present, because actually, they were.
If we go back to the earlier-discussed Frankel E12-13 drawing for WTC 7’s 12th and 13th floor and look at the bottom, we see the byline: “For additional studs see cust. dwg. S8 Rev. I.”
cantor-frankel-drawing-e12-13-shead-studs-wtc7
A curious problem is that this Revision 1 drawing was not included in the 2011 FOIA release of the Cantor and Franklin drawings. It’s equally strange that no public discussions were going on about it by this time, because structural engineering professor Colin G. Bailey of the University of Manchester in England had already been aware of the omitted shear studs for years. In an April 5, 2010 signed court statement on behalf of a group of corporate plaintiffs against 7 World Trade Center Company, Bailey wrote:
‘…Key NIST omissions: 1 inch of seat width, stiffeners, lateral support beams
Unfortunately for NIST, after a successful FOIA request in 2011 for the shop fabrication drawings of Building 7, NIST was found to have omitted crucial data from its computer simulation model in order to (barely) reach enough lateral displacement for girder A2001 to have fallen off its seat. With one or more of this crucial data included, it appears to have been impossible for the girder in question to have failed, meaning that NIST would have to start its investigation all over again…..’
“Evidence discovered after June 15, 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed on each floor on the girder running between columns 79 and 44. This was done to increase the ability of this part of the structure to support an additional 10 psf load above the original design load. As a result, only 30 shear studs were installed…”…..’
‘….To summarize, it appears that at some point NIST scientists determined that girder A2001 must have failed and then began to manipulate their computer model by strategic omissions in order to make this failure happen:
a little less seat width here;
a couple of stiffeners less there;
take out those lateral support beams;
crank up that temperature;
and stretch the thermal expansion to its absolute theoretical maximum.
And voila, we have a failure!…..’
Plenty there for you to get your teeth into! Ever thought of getting a job at NIST? They could use someone with your imagination and dedication to avoiding inconvenient facts.