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).
‘Weaponized psychiatry: The assault on dissidents as “conspiracy theorists”:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/10/24/weap-psych/
‘…Grohol claims that “a small minority of the population believe, and even thrive, on conspiracy theories.” In fact, polls show that from the late 1970s until today, fewer than one-third of Americans believe the Warren Commission’s “Oswald acted alone” theory, while huge majorities varying from 65% to 75% agree with the 1978 House Commission on Assassinations finding that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. Likewise, more than 100 million Americans (36% of the population) believe it is likely that 9/11 was an inside job designed to trigger the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Only 16% fully believe the official “19 hijackers” theory. Many other “conspiracy theories” command similarly high or higher poll numbers. The truth is that only a minuscule minority of the population DOES NOT hold at least some beliefs that Grohol would deride as “conspiracy theories.” So why is Grohol lying about this? Presumably because he wants to belittle people he disagrees with by falsely claiming they are a small minority, while buttressing his own position by falsely ascribing it to the majority. In so doing, he is appealing to the fallacy that “what the majority thinks must be true.”
Grohol dreams up a straw man assertion that belief in a “Las Vegas second shooter points to some ‘new world order’ plot that is intent on taking over our government and society. Or something like that. The rationale for a second shooter requires a suspension of your belief in reality and simple critical thinking.” In fact, extensive scholarly research has shown, and the European parliament has confirmed, that Operation Gladio, commanded by the Pentagon through NATO, massacred thousands of people across Europe during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s in false flag terrorist attacks designed to push the public towards accepting authoritarian leadership. Virtually all of the major “leftist terrorist attacks” of the Cold War era – the Brabant shootings, the Bologna train bombing, the murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the depredations of the Red Brigrades and Baader Meinhoff Gang, and much more – were committed by a secret US military program! Since only a few low-level perpetrators were ever prosecuted, there is no reason to think Operation Gladio ever ended. (For the gory details, read Professor Daniele Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies; Paul Williams’ Operation Gladio, and Richard Cottrell’s Gladio.)….’
Notice that in ‘1985’ (a little-known sequel to ‘1984’) all Conspiracy Theorists were to be drowned at birth (shush, don’t let May or Trump hear you say that – might give ’em ideas).
By the way, of Kevin Barrett’s three mentioned books about Gladio, I recommend Paul Williams book.
The article makes false accusations against a psychiatrist, and the Veterans Today site is well known for lies and anti-Semitism.
Fuck it. I have had enough. You lot have been trying to silence and discredit me for years, well you’re going to get what you want. I’ll make it happen for you. The clock is ticking, and in hours or days or weeks you’ll get what you’ve all been angling for; I’ll be silenced, permanently.
But fuck you all. I’m not going quietly.
Hey mods, you can lock me out, but you know I’ve got the knowledge to get back in again. Have fun playing fuck a mole.
What this thread is about is irrationality. It’s about believing whatever you want to believe in the face of all the evidence. That’s all human existence has ever been about; all the poxy religions and all the fucking wars fought over them, it’s all about signing up to some shared belief and forcing it onto as many others as possible, no fucking difference, ever.
Well I don’t fucking care any more. It’s not going to stop and it’s not going to change; people enjoy it too fucking much for that.
Clark, I wish you wouldn’t carry on like this. Your persistent logic and reasoning has brought me from being convinced the 9/11 was an inside job, and the twin towers were definitely destroyed in a controlled demolition, to thinking that – on the balance of probabilities – they came down in the manner we saw due to their flimsy construction and catastrophic damage.
That’s not to say that the entire operation wasn’t allowed – through incompetence helped along a bit by turning a blind eye – because of a need for a “new Pearl Harbour” to be a galvanising event to get the US public behind new adventurism in the Middle East.
But why take it all so damned personally? People are crap online. They’re often crap in person too, of course. There is – however – no reason to take it to heart like this.
To an act of God?
Glenn, so far as I know the available evidence does not rule that out. And the war criminal Blair still prowls the Earth.
But none of that means I should tolerate the sort of shit that’s been posted here recently. Ongoing lies and bigotry right no wrongs.
Blair is still at large, and Bush, and all the ones that helped them waste Iraq. Nothing is done, yet their whole case for war was a concoction of lies. There’s full documentary proof, just as there is that Rice and Straw cleared the torture programmes.
Absolutely incontrovertible. The only conceivable explanation for the inaction is victor’s justice. And activists would have ensured that certain Israelis had to be arrested for use of white phosphorus if the law hadn’t been changed especially.
So why is there such an effort to promote non-evidence and fake physics? Such sources never mention the obvious charges that could be brought but never are. In whose interests is it to muddy the waters with reams of 9/11 lies?
Google promote a lot of the 9/11 shit with their search engine results and their enormous subsidiary YouTube.
Heard of Google? That big data mining and commercial surveillance outfit with close ties to the NSA?
Indeed…. I’m sure the PTB are far happier for people to waste time doing “research” on crap like old cartoons than in demanding justice for the very real war criminals still living the high life at our expense.
Don’t forget the sterling work Ba’al is still doing on that front. He’s all alone there – I guess real war criminals who have a substantial influence on our society are not as interesting as mini-nukes, holograms and so on:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/02/an-apology/comment-page-43/#comments
Months and months and months of it, the sly insinuations, the whispering in code behind your hands. And Macky will give you all justification and say “oh you’re just looking for sympathy”, dripping with derision 😀
But go back and look at how you all treat Kempe…
Clark, sorry to read of your distress. In all my dealings with you I have always felt that you were a decent guy with whom I would get on well if we met in the flesh and drank a pint. Maybe we should do that one day. I’ve always wished you would not take it all to heart so. I try to remain light-hearted about the cut-and-thrust, it’s like a playground, and I’m afraid it brings out the worst in us. When it does start to get to me I take a break from it and I think you should consider that for a short while, it wouldn’t hurt. And I promise to make sure we don’t resolve anything while you are away 🙂
Take care matey and stay safe.
KingofWelshNoir, sorry to be so angry, but what has been going on on here has really fucked me off, and I think it was utterly wrong of you to encourage it.
And I really haven’t cleared you in my mind as someone trustworthy. Your bit of talking in the voice of your fictional detective; Is the character anti-Semitic? Because as I remember, the only suspect he named for the Las Vegas shooting was Mossad. Correct me if I’m wrong.
As to your idea of a meeting, I think that’s a very good suggestion. But there are various people who comment at this site who run false identities, and they consistently refuse to meet anyone.
–“People always ask, ‘What can I do?’ And then they say, here’s something I can do. I can become a qualified civil engineer in an hour, and prove that Bush blew up the World Trade Center. I’m pretty sure that in Washington they must be clapping. A couple of years ago, I came across a Pentagon document that was about declassification procedures. Among other things, it proposed that the government should periodically declassify information about the Kennedy assassination. Let people trace whether Kennedy was killed by the mafia, so activists will go off on a wild goose chase instead of pursuing real problems or getting organized. It wouldn’t shock me if thirty years from now we discover in the declassified record that the 9/11 [conspiracy] industry was also being fed by the [Bush] administration.”
Chomsky, Noam (2007). What We Say Goes. Allen & Unwin, New Zealand. p. 39. ISBN 978-1-74175-348-6.
Substitute Larry Silverstein for Bush, for most commenters here of course, but the same principle still applies since you think the ‘Whos’ run everything anyway.
Cue irrelevant criticism of specifics without addressing the principle….
Well, well, I don’t know why we are all arguing, as apparently plastered in various places all over the internet, there’s a “man who has solved 911” ! Christopher Bollyn is the man’s name, and he’s written I think two books on 911. I have not read them, or even watched some of the quite long Youtube videos; instead I sampled this 30 mins interview, and lo & behold, the Dancing Israelis & Odigo are cited right at the start, then he talks a lot about the steel, and states that the “white” explosions are not fuel explosions, etc, etc. Worth watching as he comes across as a serious rational person; see what you think;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqQu1OkAgaI
MODS, Bollyn pushes groundless conspiracy theories with strongly anti-Semitic overtones, and I had to push a neo-Nazi fan of his off the Missing Aircraft thread. I’m getting real sick of this.
Gatekeeping again!
@Glenn, remember our recent exchange on the Las Vegas Shooting, in particular your view of that it’s devoid of any political angle, whilst I argued the opposite, in that every event of this type, always has enormous political implications/connotations, etc, and that both the Gun Lobby & Gun Control Lobbies will try to use this shooting to further their agendas ? Well I just happen to read this (the podcast transcript is below), and the section where this shooting is discussed, makes very interesting reading;
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/04/intercepted-podcast-guns-before-country/
Further to my comment on the Las Vegas Shooting, I see PCR is now conceding that all is not what it may appear to be;
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/26/las-vegas-shooting-wont-go-away/
Surprise! Turns out Trump isn’t releasing all the JFK assassination documents. 54 years after the fact, there’s still stuff the deep state has to hide. Well, they still haven’t released everything about Pearl Harbor, nearly 76 years after the fact.
@ lysias October 27, 2017 at 00:13
They don’t need to release the Pearl Harbour info, it’s all in ‘Day of Deceit’ by Robert B. Stinnett.
Foreknowledge iro JFK ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-41773716
I thought all this was already common knowledge ?
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/JFK-Files-Expose-CIA-Plot-to-Stage-Miami-Bombings-and-Blame-Fidel-Castro-20171027-0013.html
Latest releases confirm what is shown in banned History Channel DVD, more than one assassin ?;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-27/one-paragraph-you-need-read-jfk-assassination-files-may-change-everything
What difference does it make if the destruction of the towers was caused by controlled explosive demolition or by aircraft?
“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden’s organisation would turn its attention to the west. ”
Robin Cook July 2005 (4 weeks later he was dead)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development
The US are responsible for the towers coming down, the cause is simply academic.
Peter, it makes a huge difference because (1) Twin Tower demolition theory is anti-scientific, anti-educational. Acceptance of it forces open a global divide between activism and rationality, and (2) there are a bunch of neo-Nazis pushing Twin Tower demolition theory because Larry Silverstein would had to have been a top perpetrator. I’m not saying Silverstein wasn’t in the know; there’s no way I can tell one way or the other. But such accusations must be based on sound evidence and reasoning, not on a concocted myth constantly reinforced with lies and abuse.
And (3); oddly enough, most of the people who accept Twin Tower demolition theory also deny any of the blow-back from the collaboration you name. Instead they say it’s imaginary, all faked for TV at best, or perpetrated by the victims’ own neighbours and colleagues at worst. This, too, is anti-rational and spreads paranoia.
Poor Robin Cook. I read his book The Point of Departure. The conspiracy theorists should read it to understand how a coordinated political/media attack really proceeds.
I just tried a search for that book. Nothing on Google’s front page of results, and just a passing mention on Cook’s Wikipedia page.
I have at least now added the book to the Wikipedia “point of departure” disambiguation page.
Clark, you have never, never ever, shown that “Twin Tower demolition theory is anti-scientific, anti-educational.” You’ve only ever blethered on using pseudo metaphysics with absolutely no real science except what you regard as science. It is not right to continue to mislead unless you can show by experiment that the NIST version of how the buildings came down is correct. You actually sound like Noam Chomsky when you gatekeep for authority. You consistently state like Chomsky that the majority of structural engineers and architects accept the government story. It is total nonsense and what really irritates those of us who want to get the truth out into the public domain.
Nearly three thousand (3,000) real engineers and architects want a proper inquiry. You want people to believe MSM nonsense. Yet you have failed to find ten (10) architects and engineers who currently support the NIST version. Such a collapse cannot be modeled the way the authorities said it did and consequently it is wrong.
What really annoys me is that such an intelligent person as yourself can be duped the way you have been. Chomsky too. But in Chomsky’s case I suspect he is not allowed to look into the real cause. Otherwise he could not be regarded as an academic.
Today the US has released some information about the assassination of President Kennedy but not released many documents because they could undermine people’s faith in the Secret Services – as if anybody had any faith. Why do you think they are sitting on this information? Do you think it might be because conspiracy theorists, as you like to dub us, might be right in believing there is something wrong with the official story about Kennedy’s assassination?
You run away from every physical, rational argument I post. I will do experiments with models, but so far you have refused. You have no time, you claim, but still you have time for more of this nonsense.
And you LIE, John. I already gave you links to academic discussions about the Twin Towers, and a whole list of names. You dismiss them ALL as parroting government stories. I can’t keep finding them just because you pretend not to have seen them. Try Charlie Thornton, or go here:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
You misunderstood. I said Cole’s experiments were good enough for me. I do not want to waste time with somebody on a mission on a project that cannot be substantiated by known science and engineering methodology. I have told you time and again you do not understand how Newton’s third law applies in the real world. If you did you would not hold the views you hold.
What’s his name, with “Green” in the surname? He’s famous among Twin Tower demolition advocates because he challenged Bazant. Even HE accepts damage -> fire -> structural failure -> progressive collapse.
“And you LIE, John. I already gave you links to academic discussions about the Twin Towers, and a whole list of names. You dismiss them ALL as parroting government stories. I can’t keep finding them just because you pretend not to have seen them. Try Charlie Thornton, or go here:”
Where is the lie? I said: “Yet you have failed to find ten (10) architects and engineers who currently support the NIST version.” To show me I’m wrong you list one person in an article from 2006. And ask me to go searching on some other wild goose chase. The 3,000 A&E for truth are current. No credible engineer or architect would put his neck on the line today. And that is thanks to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. So ask yourself, because you have called me a liar so many times in the past, whether you should be looking inwardly.
Clark
Reading the second link
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
strikes me at various levels.
1. Why did this scientist have to be the one investigating the steel and not the official enquiry.
2. Why was the steel removed from the scene of crime to a scrapyard, surely an unconventional procedure given the gravity and implications in this case?
3. So the responsibility of the collapse of the towers has now shifted from the government to the builders of the towers and the port authorities. Surely this replaces one conspiracy by the authorities by another?
4. Why has this discovery of shortcuts in buildings not resulted in a major at least rebuke to the laxity of the builders or designers and the port authority. Have anyone been reprimanded.
5. Is it really possible for designers and builders to be so secretive about thier design when such an unprecedented tragedy?
6. Would an aluminium framed aeroplane really slice through a building as portrayed?
The problem about 911 is that all the explanations offered, the stand down of the air force, the theory of boxcutters, the vertical collapse of three buildings, two hit by planes and one not, the loss of some records, the rather dubious phone calls and this present articel or lead to more questions and are really not very scientific.
John Goss, I gave you well over ten names MONTHS ago, but you ignored me as you always do. You can find plenty of names at Engineers’ Blogspot.
SA:
1 & 2) Because the use of brittle steel harder than A36 steel was embarrassing? Read Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. Because they wanted to get the financial quarter of New York open as quickly as possible? Because if US workers suspected their skyscraper offices might be unsafe and refused to work in them it could have crashed the US economy?
3) Correct.
4) Same as (3), but building codes (regulations) have been improved. Quietly.
5) Yes. In the US, “commercial confidentiality” trumps all. As it will here if we don’t fight.
6) The wings probably wouldn’t have entered if the perimeter had been made of standard A36, so little fire, so probably no collapse. Read Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl; he did a computer simulation. Other simulations were done for the court cases.
Yes I have done my homework. Listen to veteran structural engineer Charlie Thornton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2jAgp1slFM
This information is what the demolition theorists refuse to acknowledge.
Now you’ve given two engineers. One from eleven years ago. One from nine tyears ago. I said you have not provided ten current engineers.
Anyway Thornton is not credible. What he says about not being able to fireproof it might have some basis in the decision to demolish the WTC and blame it on foreign people of the Middle East to blast them to kingdom come, but you are going to have to do better than that. You, and Chomsky, keep saying there are only a few engineers and architects who do not support the official view. When in actual fact it is the other way round. So who’s the liar?
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Charles_Thornton
You say Thornton isn’t credible but the things he states about the Twin Towers are factual. The floor assemblies DID rest on one inch bar joists, as he puts it, and it WAS impossible to make the fire-protection stick to them. The buildings WERE so lightweight that they needed thousands of dampers to prevent sway making people seasick.
You’ve spouted so much bunk about the Twin Towers, like pretending they were supremely strong and substantial when precisely the opposite is actually supported by the records. At first you could have just been mistaken, but in all these months it seems you have checked NONE of the information I have found and provided you with. You make claims about the physics and models but you refuse to do the experiments and you won’t discuss the physics; you just change the subject or disappear every time. You “don’t have time”, but you have plenty of time to post misleading comments.
And you ignored my links months ago to far more than than two engineers. You can just make your misleading claims, and I’ll have to do all the work of finding that link again somewhere in previous pages.
“The buildings WERE so lightweight that they needed thousands of dampers to prevent sway making people seasick.”
My guess is dampers are essential on all large structures. Without them the buildings would fracture because there has to allowance for expansion and contraction. It is why they have them on bridges.
You can get companies to advise on these kind of shock-absorbers. In short you need them.
http://www.seismicdamper.com/src/pdf/taylor_brochure.pdf
Clark I look at many of your links I just do not comment on most of them because you would keep coming back and trying to disprove my comment so it saves me time. Find me ten current supporters of NIST please. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as you keep saying, the vast majority of engineers and architects support NIST and then not be able to find them. I recall responding to some of your posts on this subject. None of them as I recall were current, not even back then.
It is fantasy to make things up. Ask KoWN. He’s written a bit. But that is the world of fiction.
Utter, utter ignorance from you. NIST say virtually nothing about collapse progression, except that little Truther-taunt “essentially in free fall”. You’re so ignorant you don’t even know who or what you are arguing against.
This is part of a rational blowback explanation that says we had it coming for attacking them, but is denounced with the cry, that doesn’t mean they can attack us, the terrorists! Its very manipulative because our natural concern for our own side, is used to justify a criminal foreign policy and is even worse when the events to justify us destroying them on behalf of the Israel coalition are false flags staged by the coalition.
But the bit missed, but raised by Trump, is even if we humour the official narrative it still means the government is guilty for their failure to stop it, which is a remarkable failure considering what was involved and the targets hit.
No. the blow-back argument is that “our” Gulf allies are also a danger to us, because they hate the neocon’s unconditional support for Israel.
Trump will do fuck all because he’s in it up to his neck. When he tried to ban “Muslims”, he made an exception for Saudi Arabians.
The history of the “West’s” treatment of “Islamic” extremists and Arab countries is one of exploitation followed by betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. The resentment is real.
It does not start or end with Trump, all POTUSs (and contenders like Hillary Clinton) are beholden to KSA.
SA, yes. The US government is overly influenced by the Israel lobby, but it’s actually DEPENDENT upon Saudi Arabia. You can’t run an enormous war machine without liquid fuel, and Israel has very little of that. I worry for Venezuela. In all this concentration upon Israel, the activity of the CIA in South America tends to be forgotten. But not by Chomsky.
Oil is very important and AGW is a hoax, but the “oil lobby” requires peace not war as the best environment in which to extract oil, as conflict results in big drops in production, for example, with little now produced by Libya. True making it more difficult to extract can push up the price and this is a reason why Canada may support conflict because it makes their ‘tar sands’ deposits economical and this could be achieved by simply applying tariffs. But support for, is different to, driving the conflict, particularly as Saudi Arabia can, less so now, simply cut production to raise price. Also an America First President would seek to promote production of oil, and energy, from within America. Its the influence of the “Israel lobby” that explains US crazy foreign policy, because “oil lobby” doesn’t need conflict to thrive.
Really? Study this map:
http://www.killick1.plus.com/map.jpg
Between them, the US and Russia have the reserves surrounded. Any left in the ground will eventually go up in price, so holding the territory is seen as an investment. US military and mercenary power could clear areas like Libya of the rag-tag “terrorists” they’ve left behind in short order.
The neocons’ obsession is Russia. Convergence of interests ensures they effectively hold Israel, which would collapse in an instant without US support. Israel is effectively a beachhead. Sure, the Israeli Right is expansionist, but they’re really only interested in overthrowing countries outside the US sphere.
Trump’s just more of the same; pro Israel, pro Saudi, pro Gulf monarchy. What’s “an America First President”? The US (America is a continent) is a
drugoil addict. Would a “US First President” gratify that addiction?Securing the oil reserves of the area does not require destroying the place, particularly as US and Russia have their own reserves and there are vast reserves elsewhere too and more is found the more we look, not to mention gas and other alternatives.
As for me swearing, there is no moderation rule against swearing, and different people have different standards for language and communication. Nearly every rational comment I raise on here is countered with subtle abuse, evasion or changing the subject; months and years of it. Just because abuse gets under your personal standards of “decency” doesn’t make it OK; Phil raised this point and it is valid. It’s the focus of the argument that counts; are they engaging the argument or denigrating the commenter?
Just read Craig’s new Post “Misdirection and Catalonia”, and even he confirms that false flags are standard operating procedures;
“Side by side went a much more aggressive approach by the BND. Piggybacking on the Termez airbase, the BND created the “Islamic Jihad Union” as their first post World War II false flag operation, to provide political cover for their alliance with the Uzbek dictatorship.”
Craig’s studied history. He knows that there are innumerable false flag events over the centuries. But they are on the increase. I want to say more about when you and I were virtually lone voices supporting the poor people of Donbas in the light of what is happening to the alternative press. Soon there will be nowhere for freedom of expression. Very busy will try later.
There really is an urgent need for non-US replacements for all the big American platforms such as, Google, Paypal, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc, as they are trying to do to the internet what they did to MSM.
https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/05/googles-new-search-engine-bias-is-no-accident/
Yes it’s very worrying.
Well you could start by replacing your software with GNU/Linux and learning to help edit Wikipedia.
What is needed is collective, collaborative action. “Non US” isn’t good enough; it needs to be non-corporate, owned by the users like GPL software is. Stop moaning and take action; it isn’t that difficult.
Trump has been promoting the “fact” that he is very intelligent which I have some doubts about. Yet he did make the observation that the windows in both towers were so close together and narrow was because of the spacing of the girders.
I can’t be arsed researching it but does anyone know the spacing of the vertical steel beams (and for that matter the wingspan of the aircraft)?
The question being how many beams did the aircrafts pass through?
My background is in engineering, explosives and rocket design. I cannot think of another possible explanation for the 45 deg cuts to the beams at the bottom of the tower than shaped charges.
The rubber tyres intact on the landing gear not burnt? (not incinerated)
My inclination is WTC7 was dropped and if it was then its entirely likely the other two were. Miles of cable are not needed with wireless technology.
What I haven’t worked out is why (if explosive demolition was involved) why WT7 was not given a better alibi than just falling down in sympathy.
But whatever the US were responsible, either planning the airstrikes and demolition, funding and facilitating the perpetrators or wanton negligence of facilitating al Qaida with the wherewithal to succeed with the attack.
I think you need to watch the collapse videos more closely. They proceeded damaged zones downwards, and cuts at the bottom couldn’t do that.
The perimeter box columns were 14 inch by 14 inch but hollow, the steel sheet from which they were made being only about 1/4 inch at the impact zones; thicker in lower sections of the buildings.
Yes, the landing gear passed out the far side of the building before the fuel fireball ignited. Watch the impact videos; you can see it happen.
The 45 degree cuts were made as part of the clearance process. Don’t trust “Truther” websites; they distort all facts towards demolition, really quite shamelessly.
It’s difficult to assess even how many parties may have contributed, but it’s clear the US authorities covered a lot of it up. I expect they’re hiding how thoroughly they were penetrated, and by what means.
“The perimeter box columns were 14 inch by 14 inch but hollow, the steel sheet from which they were made being only about 1/4 inch at the impact zones; thicker in lower sections of the buildings.”
You really don’t understand steel or aluminium. Those box columns were extremely strong. The planes (if there were any) would have had aluminium skins (I can only get figures for the 727) of which the minimum skin thickness is .097 cm (0.038 inches). Make them too thick and they won’t get off the ground. So let’s double that for argument’s sake to 0.194 cm or (0.076 inches). Even then it is not much thicker than a sixteenth of an inch.
If the “but hollow” wings hit the fourteen inch box columns I know what would happen but in your world of fantasy physics the aluminium cuts through the steel in Popeye fashion. It is this kind of nonsense that makes the rest of us disinclined to answer your comments.
I would appreciate it if anyone can get the specification for the aluminium gauge used on 767 commercial planes. It took me ages to get the figure above and then I could not get into the site to check further.
Yeah, but the steel stood crossways, whereas the aluminium hit longways. Effectively it was seven millimetres of steel flesh versus metres of aluminium blade.
On impact both would have started to deform (equal and opposite forces), the aluminium more than the steel, obviously. But the aluminium had more aluminium behind, and it just kept coming.
The fuselage punched the first big hole, and the engines (hardened turbines on titanium shafts) punched two smaller ones either side; the wings just had to join the dots; always easier.
Your trouble, John, is you haven’t practised thinking of physical extremes. I have, since I was twelve. “What’s going on at the point of contact? Where does one object end and the other begin? If you drop one on the other, does it stop dead? No it can’t, they must deform…”
See, I’m a non-dualist. For me, the physical is the spiritual, and physical law is God’s law.
That’s why I’m so much more interested in reality than in trashy conspiracy websites. God’s work versus man’s.
‘What I haven’t worked out is why (if explosive demolition was involved) why WT7 was not given a better alibi than just falling down in sympathy.’
I have always assumed the plan was for a third plane to hit it, but for whatever reason the hijacking failed/was aborted.
The twin towers exploded into dust and provided very dramatic TV coverage and intentionally so to provide the pretext for the “war on terror”, whereas WT7 was an almost invisible, non-reported and unknown event in comparison and intentionally so as a hidden crime within a crime. The absence of a plane hides the collapse and isn’t really needed to explain the collapse, because if people can believe the twin towers were destroyed by two planes, they will simply make excuses for WT7 for whatever reason, to avoid going against the official narrative!
There are over 150,000 members of the ASCE. There must be tens or hundreds of millions of people in the world who can recognise that the Twin Towers progressively collapsed. Of course it was an immense shock, but the videos are there and careful inspection reveals that it’s all thoroughly consistent.
There are plenty who recognise that what WTC7 did was extremely weird; myself and Danny Jowenko to name but two. Even NIST said it was weird, and had to come up with a unique explanation. If you’re looking for a potentially unnatural collapse, WTC7 is a – no probably the prime example, whereas the Twin Towers are a non-starter.
But no one seems to be looking at where that might lead. Most WTC7 demolition enthusiast are just hoping for a stepping-stone to falsely “prove” that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives.
Nah. The targets were symbolic. The Pentagon represented US militarism. Both Twin Towers were hit because the perpetrators wanted at least one aircraft impact to get major TV coverage.
Hasn’t it occurred to you that the fourth target was probably going to be the White House? And that’s why it never got there? And if it had, then the Statue of Liberty wouldn’t have been, and the “they hate our freedoms” line would have been completely confounded.
If it had been the White House, it would all fit with Osama bin Laden. Exiled from his corrupt family for his piousness, the bin Ladens were, are, very close to and inter-invested with the Bush family, and Bush was in the White House.
You know whistle-blower Susan Lindauer says there’s a US fighter pilot held in the same air force base as she was, and he’s there for shooting down the Shanksville plane? If it was blown apart in the air it would explain the minor scar on the ground and the wide dispersal of the debris. And it would fit with the very early conspiracy theory; “stop one, let the others through”.
The Twin Towers, in Manhattan with the highest Jewish population, of course represented both US commercial imperialism and US support for Israel.
Shit, you should respect what the attackers did.
exactly. It’s difficult to avoid coming to that assumption.
Exactly – in response to KOWN.
Peter, my suspicion is that because WTC7 housed the secret services that was the operations centre for the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2. Also apparently there was quite a quantity of gold bullion which you can bet left the building before anybody including Elvis Presley. 🙂
Peter I think the spacing of the columns was 2ft. But that is from memory and I doubt it is centre to centre so I’m guessing about 3 ft between centres.
59 columns per face, 60m square footprint.
The reason the rubber tyres survived the inferno (unlike the black box flight data recorders) was simple: they weren’t constructed from conventional rubber but from the same indestructible material they use to make certain Middle Eastern passports. The scientific name for it is Patsy-Tanium.
Does Louie Knight have any contacts who can get me some of that Patsy-Tanium? I think I might like some for my bike when I go through the Sahara and Kalahari. If Sospan’s the contact count me out. A bit wooden if you ask me. But the dolly doing the nightclub spot looks pretty flexible, like there’s a bit of give in her. Perhaps she’s into rubber substitutes. Check her out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nstzdzcsb6U
Ha ha whoever did that couldn’t even spell the hero’s name!
I wouldn’t mind a Patsy-Tanium bike either! It’s lighter than Titanium.
Still encouraging the mythology? I very much expect that you know better.
“You’ve spouted so much bunk about the Twin Towers, like pretending they were supremely strong and substantial when precisely the opposite is actually supported by the records. ”
This is the same non-argument as the majority of “engineers and architects” support the NIST version. The twin towers were extremely strong and the engineer rebuilding the latest world trade centre building being erected has said when asked how he would have built the WTC twin towers he said the same way they were constructed. Thornton by the look of the video you posted appears to be in bed with the the US government both in the way he speaks and the contracts he gets. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
How does the overall density of the Twin Towers compare with the Empire State? I know the answer. You have only mythology.
Since “engineer” Goss has neglected to answer this question;
The Empire State Building is nearly three times as substantial as the Twin Towers were.
Yes, but that is what non-engineer Clark says. I bet a pound to a penny he thinks that more steel means more strength. 🙂 Advances in structural engineering meant that less steel could be used to get just as much, and even more, strength. The design of the twin towers was A1. It’s strength was in the design. In the same way keeping aircraft airborne meant they had to be built even lighter than the twin towers. But in the minds of non-engineers anything can happen. Wafer thin aluminium can cut through 14 inch of steel. This gave me a good laugh, though I know I shouldn’t. 😀
“Yeah, but the steel stood crossways, whereas the aluminium hit longways. Effectively it was seven millimetres of steel flesh versus metres of aluminium blade.
On impact both would have started to deform (equal and opposite forces), the aluminium more than the steel, obviously. But the aluminium had more aluminium behind, and it just kept coming.”
I like it when you add a bit of levity in your comments Clark. I realise you were just having a bit of fun. Thanks. 😀
Serious casting of doubt on the official narrative iro the Boston Bombing:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/26/case-judicial-murder/
Boston marathon eh? Dangerous territory. Remember Dave McGowan? Greatest conspiracy analyst of all time: writer of the awesome ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’ series on the moon landings, and writer of a 9/11 Truth article containing all the key troofer points the very next day on 9/12. A really brilliant guy.
On 15 June 2015 he posted the following on his website:
”
On 14 April 2015, I presented a lengthy video deconstruction of the 2013 Boston Marathon incident through the Caravan to Midnight radio show/podcast. About a week later (on 20 April of all days), the nearly four-hour video presentation was uploaded to YouTube. Not long after that, someone using the username Phoenix Archangel posted an interesting comment: “John [Wells, the host of the show] always signs off with some of the best advice ever. Speaking of advice: this David McGowan fella really ought to quit smoking. With all the elitist feathers he’s ruffling, he’s likely to come down with a spontaneous case of hitherto undiagnosed stage 4 inoperable Pancreatic cancer.”
…
As for Mr./Ms Archangel, he/she wasn’t too far off, though I’ve been told that it’s actually incurable small-cell lung cancer that has already spread to my liver and bones. And no, that’s unfortunately not a joke. It’s my new reality as of just a few short weeks ago, when my entire world was turned upside-down and I suddenly found myself being admitted to the oncology ward at Glendale Adventist Medical Center. Four days later, I was beginning my first round of chemotherapy infusions. The second round began on 15 June.
”
Six months later he was dead.
Info taken from:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/David_McGowan
Thanks KOWN for the introduction to Dave McGowan, and wow ! He certainly was a very gifted talent, and how suspicious that his early demise was due to cancer, as it reminds me that several non-US friendly South American leaders all caught cancer at around the same time; just read his morning after 911 piece, and it’s like he had psychic precognition abilities !
Looking forward to read his Wagging the Moondoggie !
I’ve been a long time fan of Mr McGowan and was sorely saddened to hear of his death. You should check out his Laurel Canyon series. I also like his discussion of the attacks on the no-plane-at-the-pentagon position. He talks of the “Tattoo Theorists”. You can read it here:
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/september11-act-ii-addendum-ii/
@George, thanks for the link to the Tattoo Theorists piece, & to the website itself; lots of reading material to devour, as I like his slice-down-to-the-bone but with humour style, and what a lost for the quest for the Truth.
Thanks for the ‘Tatttoo theorists’ link, George. I thought I’d seen all his stuff, but this was new to me. And it chimes exactly with my own thoughts. The hostility with which certain researchers attack those who don’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon is very noticeable and out of all proportion to the ‘evidence’ on which their certainty is based.
Another researcher who bangs the same drum is Joël van der Reijden who first appeared on the scene with some excellent work on the Dutroux affair at his ISGP website. It was very serious well-researched stuff. Now I see his site is full of fringe stuff like crop circles and articles on Atlantis. It also looks to me to be far too much work for one man.
KingofWelshNoir, it is also the case that conspirology is addictive and anti-rational, enticing partakers ever deeper into its shadow world of detail-scavenging, speculation, and suspension of disbelief. As a fiction writer (for the corporate media) you deliberately develop the skill of inducing the latter, of course. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as it says “fiction” in the attribution.
The Tattoo Theorist article was very enlightening for me since I always felt there was a kind of double-bluff going on there i.e. the basic tactic was to pose as a doubter of the mainstream account but then divert away from the Pentagon instance. The basic approach is to say, “Hey we believe 9/11 was an inside job too but don’t go near the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon argument. You’ll only look stupid since it’s really really really obvious that there was a plane!”
@ KingofWelshNoir October 27, 2017 at 19:31
His video is not available on the wikispooks link ( David McGowan: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/David_McGowan ), but it is here:
‘Caravan To Midnight – Episode 232 Boston Marathon Bombing Hoax Deconstructed’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN9xf0gmCHI
I had never heard of him, and haven’t had time to watch the video yet. Seems to be another EXTREMELY suspicious ‘cancer contraction death’, like Aaron Russo: and of the 5 or 6 Left-Wing Latin American leaders who ‘contracted’ cancer Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro died; the others I believe survived..
Thanks Paul. My feeling is, he was murdered and the manner in which it was ‘predicted’ was clearly a warning to others.
Hello John Goss.
I said you were lying that I didn’t find ten engineers that support progressive collapse, and you called me a liar in return.
Wanna find out now?
You keep leaving out hte word “current” Clark.
Another thing is I don’t like being called a liar. I don’t call you a liar despite your numerous inaccuracies.
Oh I see, it was a trick question. You DO remember the ones I posted last time, but you neglected to mention them, and now I have to find even MORE articles on a subject that was settled years ago. What a surprise!
Why don’t you check my list and show that the ones I linked to last time have changed their minds, hmm? Oh, that’s right, they HAVE changed their minds but are too scared of the people you won’t name…
Yes of course, how stupid of me. These physics, engineering and fire professionals, having worked out that progressive collapse had occurred, suddenly realised they’d forgotten Newton’s law, checked their work and realised they’d been wrong! Ha!
Progressive collapse of the Twin Towers is completely mainstream. From the link, check the eight comments that follow:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-105/#comment-657641
And it is really, really ironic that you trash as government stooges those engineers who were prepared to point out the inadequacies of the Twin Towers.
“Nah mate, you can make ’em even cheaper and wobblier than that; perfectly safe. Now, wanna buy these gold watches? Real gold, only a fiver”
As Nikko pointed out your idea of progressive collapses apply to non-steel structures (verinage) demolitions that only work for a limited number of stories until the reaction against the action becomes too resistant to the action. If that was not the case demolition experts would not have such problems bringing down skyscrapers with a structural steel design.
.
Skyscrapers are not demolished with explosives because the debris spreads too far. Officially, no building nearly as high as WTC7 has ever been explosively demolished. They’re deconstructed instead. A skyscraper could be explosively demolished if it was isolated in a big field, but skyscrapers are only ever built in cities so there are always other buildings that would be damaged by falling debris, as many buildings around the WTC site were.
The verinage patent claims the technique to be suitable for buildings of any height. Please stop guessing because it’s boring, because you always guess predictably.
Seven of the eight comments that follow are yours. When that happens I think Clark is absolutely determined to prove his point. But when I read the comments I realise he has not succeeded.
On the other hand I noticed yesterday or the day before that thanks to your persuasive arguments Glenn (formerly UK) has come round to your way of thinking. He appears to know some science so I consider that a success for you. Perhaps now he will help formulate with you how the towers came down the way they did against all engineering and physical odds.
Glenn could I am sure help you to build the model and I should be happy to look at it and if convinced condone it.
John, it’s not about success or failure. It’s just about telling fact from fiction, and there has been so much fiction generated over the years.
As for models, modelling the Twin Towers is way beyond our ability. What we could do is address the rescaling problem. We could build a stack of, say, four or five ceramic horizontals with a given vertical spacing, and drop a weight on them from a measured height and see if it accelerates or decelerates. For horizontals of uniform dimensions, we could alter the vertical spacing to find the critical spacing that yields uniform velocity. Greater spacing should lead toward acceleration, lesser spacing should lead toward deceleration.
We could then repeat the procedure with horizontals scaled down, say 4:1 in all three dimensions, and scaled up 1:4. That would tell us whether rescaling the horizontals affects the critical vertical spacing that gives uniform descent. It would give us some experimental handle on the validity of Cole’s models. It might even give us some graphs to play with from which we could extrapolate to Twin Tower dimensions. We’d need to make a lot of ceramic horizontals.
Please tell me whether you understand the procedure I’m suggesting. If you have questions I’ll do my best to answer.
As for me posting many comments, I just express one thought which clears it from my mind, leaving space in which another comes along.
John, does it excite you that we could do a more informative experiment than Cole did?
It sort of excites me, but intuitively I’m already pretty sure which way the results would trend, and that, at Twin Tower dimensions the collapse would accelerate pretty sharply.
Clark, it is no good trying to get me “excited” about experiments you want to do. I have no time as I tried to explain. Perhaps you could interest Jonathan H Cole with your experiments. Email him at:
[email protected]
Although I am not able to help with this I should be interested to learn of his response.
I’m really worried about the direction this might take humanity. Anyone can just make up anything, throw it out there, and any minority that happens to like it will embellish, amplify an propagate it, applying any quantity of lies, slander and abuse in an attempt to silence or drive away any reasoned argument.
Of course the mainstream are far from innocent. In the case of the collapses of the Twin Towers, Bazant is at the very top of his profession, but his crush-down-crush-up theory is not only contradicted by the low proportion of buckled columns in the wreckage, it may not even be physically possible.
It seems everyone on all sides is just playing follow-the-leader. It’s terrifying.
There’s actually little point in my having posted that, because John Goss and the likes apparently haven’t read enough to know what Bazant’s role is in all this. They think their argument is with NIST. They’ve got their demolition theory and they’re quite happy.
It is truly scary; delusion on all sides.
– “[Bazant’s] crush-down-crush-up theory […] may not even be physically possible”
Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” is applicable if we’re only considering vertical the columns; where is their strength supposed to have suddenly gone? Why did Bazant produce a cock-eyed paper like that? And how come he’s still top professor? Could Judy Wood’s obvious nonsense actually be a protest?
You do talk tripe. You only have to read Richard Gage on the crush-down crush-up theory of Bazant to know what bunkum it is. But now at least you might be accepting that Bazant’s theory is suspect. Others of us have know it a long time.
“Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure only due to gravity and compress it into a 87.3 meters tall tower of rubble on the ground after 10 seconds! Anyone that has just dropped anything on something knows this. Try then to crush this something! You need a big force for that, which gravity alone cannot provide.”
Like stamping on an aluminium beer-can. 🙂
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread482655/pg1
I agree I have not read enough about Bazant. Others have. Before reading this Clark I have to advise you that it contains pages of formulae and discussions that go beyond my knowledge. Perhaps you can enlighten us on what is wrong with this examination or in many cases refutation of four of Dr Bazant’s papers.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=272&MMN_position=529:529
I’m rather enjoying that article so far, actually. I particularly enjoyed this bit:
– “It is quite fascinating to read these proofs while having rather overwhelming visual evidence that the events described never happened. Throughout the 3 papers written in 2007-2008, Bazant describes the WTC collapses quite literally in terms of crush down, then crush up. This literal interpretation continues today within the historic representations of the collapse progressions of the Twin Towers.
The ingrained belief in a crush down, followed by a crush up process occurring in the Twin Towers is is fascinating to observe since Bazant seems very certain within the 3 papers that it is a real event.
This conviction in a provably false mechanism demonstrates how deceived and mis-led people can be. Within each explanation of why crush down must occur before crush up, one can witness a verifiably false certainty within the “proofs””
I really find it quite gratifying to have understood the collapses more clearly than the top professor in the US! Shouldn’t gloat though; he’s about 87 I think, and probably not as bright as when he landed the job.
This is a very good point:
– “The “upper block” must have been completely rubblized early in the collapse or the entire core width couldn’t have survived to at least the 60th floor”
The author has obviously observed the collapses very carefully.
Absolutely love this:
– “Floor by floor ejections moving down the NW corner, west face and SW corner of WTC1 are observable and measurable. They certainly appear to be the actual collapse fronts. How can he know these ejection fronts are not the collapse front? The propagation velocities have already been measured down 2 different corners. This additional data must be considered by anyone proposing equations of motion describing WTC1 downward propagation of the collapse front.”
Working from observation instead of spouting empty theory. Engineering rather than physics. Love it!
John, don’t worry about the formulae because the author of your article shows them to be irrelevant, based on assumptions that are entirely inconsistent with observation.
This is engineering versus desk-bound physics. Practical. Makes Bazant look foolish.
Clark
Can you read what you just accused others of and wonder whether it does not apply to You.
I do not really want to discuss details of physics and construction but to me there is a sequence of events that are just too good to be true and followed by explanations that are many places strange and incomplete and preplanned wide ranging reactions involving bombing 6 out of 7 countries mentioned by Wesley Clark in 2005 and the seventh country is in the crosshairs.
Of course we can all as a distraction, discuss whether fragile aluminium aeroplanes can cut through steel or whether passports can magically fly out of burning buildings and remain intact, but these are tit bits and distractions. The truth is that if somebody tells you I want America to control the world but I need a new pearl harbour to do it and that just happens, you begin to wonder. The true conspiracy that was enacted is the one we call ‘The project for the new America’ or something like that. The actions following , the invasion of Iraq was then quickly exposed as a blatant lie.
“Project for A New American Century”, PNAC, SA. That, and Wesley Clark’s story, show that the neocon military dominance plan was in place and is being enacted.
Of course, they stuck the label “Made in USA” on it. Those people are not the USA, but they’re not above using a false
flagtrade-mark. Actually, they probably think they own the USA like they own so much else. Hubris.Did they think they could use 9/11? Almost certainly. But were they right? Only in the short term. They saw their “catalysing event” and being capitalists, lurched to seize it, to capitalise upon it. What a temptation; irresistible! But these people are accustomed to investing money; bland, boring money, which scours out every last vestige of the natural resources and human endeavour to which it is arbitrarily attached.
But the attack was immune to that. Deeper thought had gone into it than the neocons were capable of conceptualising. To capitalise on the attack they had to let it happen, but the message of the attack was indelible and, in its own way, righteous.
In time, the world may come to understand that message. I hope realisation does not come too late for humanity.
I am not sure why people post so much here on this thread. Although it is occasionally interesting and useful it doesn’t seem to progress anything and most have long since reached the conclusions. If a stranger comes along it would be a waste of time and they would be quite lost.
One might from time to time contemplate what one would do if you concluded you were living as a German in Nazi Germany: emigrate, go along with it and turn a blind eye, go long with a little bit of ad hoc resistance, resist, continue with one’s daily life and seek to do good as far as possible. I hadn’t contemplated that someone would spend all day debating online whether one was part of a Nazi society or not.
Life is fleeting, but animates everything we do. So let it animate some worthwhile activity. Up to each to work out what that worthwhile activity is.
I’m here to try to get people thinking for themselves. The amount of boring repetition off Truther sites is truly depressing. I keep throwing in original ideas but no one wants to know; they only want stuff they’ve “read on the Internet”, but why that doesn’t include my stuff I have no idea.
C’mon, someone surprise me. Please.
Unfortunately that is probably true. I certainly cannot change my position from what I’ve read. But it is based on engineering. 🙂
I am however open to believable alternatives.
Engineering? That’s why I call you a liar. Do some physics with me instead of repeating inappropriate analogies and I’ll stop saying it.
Calling me a liar, or calling anybody else a liar I suspect, is hardly likely to get them to want to work with you, even if they had the time.
John,
You cannot be a liar unless you KNOW you are lying. So when Clark calls you a liar then he is implying that you don’t believe what you type. Therefore you must be some kind of manipulator. Therefore he cannot logically want to work with you.
John should know he’s lying. Take a look at the following two comments:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704803
and note his vague suggestion that 1/3 of an inch of steel is stronger than 4.6 inches of aluminium! Follow down a few more comments to see he changes the subject to wiggle out of the hole he dug by pretending that aircraft wings are made only of 1mm aluminium, omitting all mention of main spars etc!
If he really has the engineering expertise he repeatedly claims, he must be lacking in integrity. If he doesn’t have such expertise, he lacks integrity by claiming that he does.
George, anyway, what are you really advising? “Cultivate ignorance, because that way you can claim whatever you find convenient without technically actually lying”? OK, constructively bullshitting then.
Clark – you called John a liar. You thereby imply he is being devious. You are playing the man and not the ball.
George, I think you are bound to side with John, merely because you believe in demolition of the Twin Towers, so you merely support your own side.
I am sick of human nature. John has lied about me, creating a false impression of me in others, for months and months and months. He claims I know no physics, that I cannot apply Newton’s laws. Some others know that this is untrue, but because they believe in demolition of the Twin Towers, they will not say to John “that’s not so, John; Clark does know Newton’s laws and how to apply them”.
When it comes to playing the man, I have been played and played and played, for months and years. Nikko is doing it again below.
My experience indicates beyond doubt that belief in demolition of the Twin Towers is used by so-called “Truthers” as a badge, a means of recognition. Anyone who does not wear it is “out”. Of those who do, most will combine forces against any who don’t. They will use whatever means they can get away with to defeat the outsider. They thereby maintain little pockets on the ‘net like this thread, where communication is corralled and controlled. It has nothing whatever to do with truth or honesty. It has nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11; that event serves merely as the “Truthers” vehicle which they have appropriated. It has everything to do with group formation. And I find that very, very ugly.
You will now dismiss this because I am not of the “in” group. I have wasted my time and effort.
Clark, I invited you countless times to do some physics and you slithered away every time.
As for your physics challenge, what we need to see is a possible mechanism, powered by gravity alone, capable of disintegrating the verical supports.
This is said to be a pivotal event and has led to wars that killed many hundreds of thousands with with worldwide consequences that are still ongoing. Your example is yesterday’s fight and has no relevance to the present discussion. The analysis about Nazi Germany Has been done.
fwl, I disagree with SA’s comment above. How ordinary people came to collaborate in genocide is something all should contemplate. That human tendency is an ever present danger. Propagating and amplifying false beliefs to buy group popularity is the seed from which it grows; hence my condemnation of conspirology.
Sorry to lay myself to a misunderstanding. What I meant is that the lessons of the Holocaust have been learnt but of course there has to still be vigilance, although very few people deny that the Nazi’s were evil.
What you call conspirology is what is the skepticism that has arisen from repeated propaganda, indoctrination and poor investigation and explanation of events that defy the ordinary laws of gravity and physics.
If you want to label everyone who disagrees with you as a conspiracy theorist then you have to bear in mind that the same may apply to you. What is apparent is that many people simply do not believe the official story for many different reasons. The fact that we know that the neocons made use of it for thier purposes strengthens rather than weakens this belief. You make out that these neocons are a small ineffective bunch, but the capture of several presidents to the agenda of the neocons shows otherwise. Even Bush did not start as a neocon, and Obama ‘change we can believe in’ Nobel Prize winner turned drone killer and surge accelerator was not, nor for that matter was Trump.
To be honest I just use this place like a common room. It’s very lonely holding these beliefs out in the outside world, it’s nice to chat about them with like-minded folk. I’m not expecting to change anything, I gave that hope up a long time ago when I came to understand that this has nothing to do with evidence but is about group psychology. People believe what the rest of the group believe and the handful who don’t are regarded as a threat. In all ages it has not been the unbeliever who is regarded as a threat, for the unbeliever never believed. The real hatred is reserved for the apostate – he once believed but fell away from belief. How else to explain the hostility this sort of talk generates?
“The real hatred is reserved for the apostate – he once believed but fell away from belief. “
Ah, you mean someone in my position – who had bought into the controlled demolition theory but isn’t at all sure about it anymore?
No I mean the shared system of beliefs about the State we took in with our mother’s milk.
No one hates you – it is admirable to express the position you have.
Yes why would someone would change their mind about controlled demolition. I can understand someone believing the official narrative as an act of faith or simply refusing to examine or acknowledge what’s before their eyes, in fear of the implications, but to change your mind must be due to a belated realisation of the implications, after innocently saying the emperor has no clothes!
KingofWelshNoir, your comment of October 28, 18:33 is fascinating because, I believe, it strikes to the heart of the problem on this thread. I thoroughly agree with it.
However, in your reply of October 28, 20:08 to glenn_nl, you added a highly specific qualification which you did not originally mention:
– “I mean the shared system of beliefs about the State we took in with our mother’s milk”
It is such a peculiar qualification that I assume you can’t have meant it literally. Would you please attempt to flesh out where your opinion actually lies, between your original very general statement and the apparent hyperbole you later tacked on.
KOWN
“the shared system of beliefs about the State we took in with our mother’s milk”
Classic inverted allegory. Mother’s milk is the good stuff that prepares us for life. The twist is that KOWN has doubts about the efficacy of the state’s milk.
I think that here if we read through the text, dig into the marrow, stop the heart for a second, KOWN is unambiguously stating that flight 903 did make Ohio.
Compared with what the US does with its carpet bombing and depleted uranium, 9/11 was a work of art.
There’s no way the US could come up with something a fraction as elegant as 9/11. No resources, perfectly chosen targets. There’s zero chance it was a US job. Not saying it wasn’t permitted from within, but no way was it a US idea.
The whole US system is about selfishness, greed and cowardice.
9/11 was about dedication and self-sacrifice.
Your statement implies the impossibility of false flag operations as a modus operandi of greedy selfish people but the sequential consequences are where the answer is.
My statement does not carry that general implication. I was commenting specifically about 9/11.
Others are free to make a list of false flag operations tabulated with their iconic and symbolic significance. I can’t think of any like 9/11 off hand, but I haven’t the (doubtful) expertise of the false-flag enthusiasts on this thread.
Of course it was possible to explosively demolish the 2 +1 towers whether they were or not is the bone of contention. I disagree, it doesn’t matter to me, what brought the towers down was US foreign policy (also adopted unquestionably by the UK).
But those interested in the technical / academic debate can get a bit excited. It really isn’t worth getting upset about, whats worth getting upset about is the people killed and their families but also the people killed using their deaths as an excuse; that’s worth getting upset about.
As I said before I haven’t researched the subject, I’m not going to. My inclination that the cause of collapse of WTC7 was explosive demolition. And because of the 360 deg symmetry collapse (of all three) at a speed consistent with gravity then I am happy to assume they all fell from the same cause. (I say the 360deg symmetry of the collapse not the damage caused by fire in all 3 and impact of two, I think that is quite important)
If I was to research it I would go back to first principals starting with structure, specifications and materials of the objects involved + energies and forces. And I am afraid that route doesn’t permit you to get very far (hitting a brick wall you could say)
John and Clark were kind enough to offer some info and I looked up the dimensions of 767’s
Very rough figures
Vertical Steel beams set 1m apart
Aircraft Wingspan 48m, Cabin Width 4.7m
Taking the immediate entry only, so no internal beams / structure and no beams on exit face. And no horizontal beams considered
The aircraft is going to come into contact with 49 / 40 steel girders, 5 / 6 of then slicing through the fuselage, the whole length of it (55m) permitting its uncharred wheels to pop out the other side. (incidentally the landing gear would have been struck by an entry girder.
Clark I’m sure the first explosion was at entry (some say prior but lets not go there) not exit , those wheels should not have had rubber on them,
Well this explains quite a bit but not why the buildings fell down
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Landing gear was up, within the fuselage. After impact there was aircraft debris all over the streets. Suggest you read the witness testimonies; it’s beyond reasonable doubt that aircraft struck the buildings.
Actually, there’s a major give-away in your link as to why the Twin Towers collapsed. About 60% down, see the construction photo showing the lightweight floor truss and the remarkably lightweight truss seats on the spandrels; just one truss seat per two columns, just two little bolt holes per truss seat. Look at what’s labelled as a “main truss”! Four inches of concrete were poured onto those metal decks; so much weight to be supported by those little rectangular lugs! Grief, those towers were SO cheap and nasty. I don’t know how any engineer can look at it and not cringe.
This could be one of the reasons they cleared the debris so fast? The Twin Towers must have had hundreds of thousands of visitors per week, millions per year, many of them from in and around New York. With the cosmetic impression of the solidity of the buildings utterly disrupted and the debris spread across the entire WTC site and further for all to see, the authorities didn’t want the public to really appreciate what flimsy construction materials they had been made from, lest they get ideas about the other buildings.
“Where Did the Towers Go” asked Judy Wood. There was never that much to them in the first place!
I tried to help you get away from your nonsense about the lightweight floors when I photographed the empty beer cans for you to experiment with. I explained that they were hollow with no inner core, yet they were still resistant to anything of their ownn weight, and would not collapse if welded together and secured at the base even if a full beer-can was to be dropped on them. I tried to demonstrate how physics in the real world behaves by the stacking of crates and by the example of all the debris skips can hold. These are wafer thin by twin towers standard.
Yet still you come back with the same unbelievable, unscientific, metaphysics which simply prove that like the unteachable child, you have no desire to learn anything you did not formerly believe. So sad. 🙁
John, forget the talking down to me and actually do some work, if you have a gramme of integrity.
Take the dimensions of a beer can, scale up to Twin Tower dimensions, and tell us all the thickness of the can wall. I think you’ll be surprised :>
These are rough workings but good enough for what we want.
Circumference of beer can = 8.15 inches = 0.68 ft
Perimeter of twin tower = 787.2 feet
Scaling is 1158 : 1
Thickness of beer can = 1mm = 4 thou. (I know this because I use it for shim on my lathe)
1158 x 0.004 = 4.632 inches
It does not surprise me. And your point?
Scale models are used, as I mentioned before, to test the viability of something being built. Going off at a tangent with toy cars and trains coming off tracks when they are not even built to scale is a distraction. Engineers know that scaling up, and down works, as it should. That’s why they do it.
http://www.modelmakers-uk.co.uk/industrial-models
Now stop wasting my time.
So you’ve scaled to the perimeter dimension, rather than the height dimension which would give you even thicker material.
But even as is, you’ve ended up with a thickness of 4.6 inches rather than the rough average at impact height of about a third of an inch – relatively, your beer can is over twelve times stronger than the Twin Towers’ perimeter.
But it matters not because the floor assemblies were even weaker, with absolutely minimal steel; try scaling the bar joists down! No really, try it! I’m NOT wasting your time; I wouldn’t do that to anyone.
“But even as is, you’ve ended up with a thickness of 4.6 inches rather than the rough average at impact height of about a third of an inch – relatively, your beer can is over twelve times stronger than the Twin Towers’ perimeter.”
You really do not understand engineering whatsoever! I really do worry about you. Don’t build me anything. For God’s sake. You said yourself:
“The perimeter box columns were 14 inch by 14 inch but hollow, the steel sheet from which they were made being only about 1/4 inch at the impact zones; thicker in lower sections of the buildings.”
Any plane would have been going into 14 inch by 1/4 inch thick steel (I’m not sure of this figure anyway). Box columns are hollow because they are lighter than 14 inch solid griders which nobody would use in the construction industry, anymore than they would make a solid plane. Beer cans are hollow – no floors, no central core. They are also made of aluminium is not used for structural support.
The height of a Bank’s beer can is 6.7 inch (170 mm). You do some calculations!
Oh I’ve done loads of scaling, and you all ignored it, wasted my time, repeatedly purely because I’m not a demolition theorist. Show some respect, please. And yes, the higher box columns were quarter inch steel; it’s on the A&E9/11″Truth” information video.
If you scaled one of the Twin Towers down to beer can size, I doubt you could even handle it because it would be so fine and delicate. Even if you scale it 100:1 ie. just over four metre high, it’s as if the high box columns were folded out of tin foil. Really. Don’t just dis; check.
YOU worry about ME. You OVERestimate a structure’s strength by a factor of at least twelve, and YOU worry about ME.
Utterly brazen. You’re taking readers for idiots.
I won’t try to help Clark again.
It is a problem when you get people without engineering skills addressing problems.
While it is true that the higher box columns were only 1/4 inch thick they were nearly 14 inches long and prefabricated with spandrels to give extra strength that was the thickness that flimsy aluminium wings .097 cm (0.038 inches) cut through in less than a second. Those were the wings that kept coming and coming. 😀
Of course if it was possible there would be no need for oxyacetylene torches or military-grade nano-thermite. We could just get a piece of wafer thin aluminium to cut through them.
As The Beatles said: “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!”
Said I wouldn’t research it but could help myself, Well only the tyre anyway.
Landing speed spead of 767 ~ 150 knots (172 mph), weight 150 tonnes, impact taken by 2 x main gear (4 tyres each – 8 total) Nose gear (2 tyres) comes into play after impact and retardation.
Ergo landing gear is pretty tough
But how tough?
It collides with a steel framed building, penetrates the building, it passes through several vertical and and at leat one horizontal steel members, at some point one wheel becomes detached from the 4 wheel unit that is contained in the wheel bay in the wing.
It travels through an explosive inferno, through electrical water and waste services, though at least one possibly two concrete and steel stair wells, lift shafts with cabling, offices and structures. Through 60m of obstacles and hits a steel wall at the other side.
But most of its momentum has now gone, not all though, its orientation has traveled through 90 deg from when it entered the building on exit it is vertical and gets stuck between two vertical girders in a 6 tonne panel which it rips out of the wall and flies several hundred feet through the air with panel attached. The force it hit the panel with was so great that the wheel was still lodged there after it hits the ground, Rubber intact!
Now that is a piece of engineering to be proud of.
Well you’ve certainly managed to make that sound very unlikely, by stacking every conceivable obstacle in its path and neglecting any possible helpful factors. Odds? How many out of how many tires were found in the streets? Witness testimony? Or would it be preferable to leap to a wild conclusion perchance?
Not sure 3 I think, plus engines , check out previous link with photos all on opposite side to entry, one 700 feet away.
The fight of the 911 families for real justice (as opposed to being paid-off as in Lockerbie) has no chance when US Justice is just a game of US geopolitics.
(Reading all the citing of the Saudi connections to 911, I was thinking well yes, but what about all the Israeli connections also !?)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-and-911-down-the-rabbit-hole-of-blame_us_59ef7e1be4b04809c0501194
As explained by Christopher Bollyn the 9/11 families all settled out of court. There was a divide between the US and UK families regarding Lockerbie with the UK families still pursuing the matter with a marathon Justice for Megrahi petition still before the Justice Committee at Holyrood.
@Dave, Thanks for the reply; despite hearing Bollyn say that, I hadn’t realised that it was all the 911 families that had settled out of court, but as illustrated by the author of the Huffington Post article, they are still naturally troubled by the fact that the murderers of their love-ones have not been brought to justice, and that money they have received was effectively hush money to keep them quite; also didn’t know about the Lockerbie UK families still holding out for real truth & justice.
Many US families did hold out for a very long time, but it was a case of they were prevented from taking it to court, until they settled out of court! But their continuing determination to seek the truth explains why most false flags don’t involve real people dying, because it’s the families of the victims who ask most questions and can’t be easily ignored.
The petition before the Justice Committee is PE1370 and has had an interesting ride and has become a totemic issue in Scotland. Initially it progressed due to the success of the SNP but now has cross party support on the Justice Committee.
The dilemma facing the Justice Committee is if they don’t want to close the petition, as its too hot to drop, but they can’t ask the Scottish Executive to act on the petition as they will refuse, as its too hot to handle, so they ask for more information from the police and others, which isn’t forthcoming, to keep the petition alive.
@ Macky October 28, 2017 at 14:07
Shush! Das ist verboten!
No it isn’t Paul. This site has more integrity than that.
This video was posted on ‘When Project Fear Shoots its Bolt’ by another poster ( Article2625UnitedNations ), but it needs to be on here too, showing government malpractice and downright criminality:
‘LAS CLOACAS DE INTERIOR ( THE STATE’S SECRET CESSPIT )’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXrYBUAcYUo
Very enlightening! I got the following links from the video:
‘Spanish government rocked by leaked recordings’:
https://www.ft.com/content/21e11994-3866-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7?mhq5j= e7
‘Spain interior minister ‘should quit’ over secret tapes’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36598874
(just to show it has been reported ‘after a fashion’ by our MSM), but it is much more interesting.
Like the original poster said, it’s a ‘Must watch’ video.
So Clark
One ‘conspiracy theory’ is replaced by a new one, that the twin towers were constructed in such a flimsy manner that they were sliced through by an aluminium aeroplane like a a hot knife slices through butter. And moreover this fact of the flimsiness of the construction is kept hidden because of commercial secrecy. I am sure some clever lawyer somewhere would have gathered that what you have described amounts to corporate negligence and successfully sue on behalf of the victims. I am waiting to hear your explanation for why this has not happened.
It has happened. Dave and Macky are discussing the out-of-court settlements on this very page.
Truthers are lazy. There must be a wealth of information in the legal submissions, despite it not actually getting into court. Here’s a YouTube to get you started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg
Note that Google / Youtube offer me Trither fiction for at least of the six suggestions that follow.
Sorry:
– “Note that Google / Youtube offer me Truther fiction for at least FIVE of the six suggestions that follow”
And here’s a better video, of the impact simulation produced for the court cases:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8pOuler95c
Clark
You really can’t be serious. In science there is a principle that is called RIRO. I hope you understand what that means. A simulation is just what it says, a simulation, based on inputting some data. Maybe all motor cars should be made of aluminium then passengers will survive any crash.
It is typical that there are now two camps: the so called truthers, considered by you as being nutters, and the believers . I am no truther, but I am very sceptical about some of the information that has been produced. And it is not only the events of the falling of three towers in such an orderly way but things like the standing down of the USAF, the smuggling out of the Saudis in the first plane that left the US after the airspace and the reaction in invading several countries as a result of this, intentions having been announced beforehand.
That governments lie to us is not new or surprising. The extent to which they lie varies but the whole history of colonialism well into the end of the 20 th century is full of lies. Post 911 there have been several documented lies (non comprehensive random order):
1. Al Qaeda is the number one enemy, FBI did not issue a warrant against him for 911.
2. Iraq has WMD and is an imminent danger to us.
3. Libyan soldiers were fired by viagra, NATO will just conduct humanitarian missions.
4. The whole lies concerning Syria and the support for Jihadis in Syria by the West and thier allies.
5. Georgia was invaded by Russia unprovoked in 2008.
6. The Ukraine putsch was led by peaceful campaigners who also happened to have snipers amongst them.
I have not included many other events, especially in the Americas, nor will I delve into the lies and inaction about climate change, GM foods and so on. The sum total of this for me is :Why should I trust these people? I may not agree with all the details of the ‘truthers’ but they do throw many interesting alternative theories as feasible as those produced by the official side.
Apart from the aluminium cars, why have bunker busting bombs when you could use various models of Boeing passenger planes to go through buildings?
SA, you can’t have read many of my other comments or you wouldn’t be lecturing me about government lies. I am familiar with all the examples you list.
I’m not asking you to trust anyone. There HAVE been court cases; that is a verifiable fact. The Truthers DO ignore the legal submissions, and just continually recycle a few daft points they seem to think are “bunker busters”. Obviously, however, these arguments can’t be as strong as the Truthers think, or some progress would have been made by now.
You seem to think that I reject Twin Tower demolition theory because I am a “believer”. No. I have worked it out for myself by watching the collapse videos carefully and studying the design of the Towers. And Truthers are Believers too; it’s just that they believe different sources. They clearly don’t work stuff out for themselves, and they seem very closed minded to me.
The exaggerated nonsense is why Truthers are dismissed as nutters. I’m trying to rectify that.
@KOWN, don’t know if you are still planning to reply on the Lincoln/Kennedy “links”, but as a further illustration of how whimsical such co-incidences are, I was re-arranging a bookshelf, when an old comic-book type annual from my childhood, “Ripley’s Believe It or Not ! annual 1974”, fell and opened at a page which had an illustration of “Man of Destiny – Abraham Lincoln”, so I read the caption below, expecting to see the same “links” to JFK again, but instead, I read this;
“Abraham Lincoln was the 2nd member of his family to die by an assassin’s bullet – the other was his grandfather:
Both victims were named Abraham.
Both had a wife named Mary.
Both had a son named Thomas.”
Stated on the cover is, “Facts to amuse & amaze” ! Well it’s certainly amusing, but am I right not to be so amazed, or did mystic forces arrange for the book to fall & open at that page ?! 😀
Thanks Macky, I will reply later.
I’m here to try to get people thinking for themselves. The amount of boring repetition off Truther sites is truly depressing. I keep throwing in original ideas but no one wants to know; they only want stuff they’ve “read on the Internet”, but why that doesn’t include my stuff I have no idea.
C’mon, someone surprise me. Please.
A lot of your “original” ideas turned out to have come from the internet, but never mind. I tried to engage you on the details of your theory but we never got very far.
20 or so posts above you are proposing to do physical modelling involving dropping weights on “horizontal” slabs and breaking tem. Could be an interesting experiment but I do not see what it has to do with the Twin Towers as the floors did not break while the supporting columns remained standing, rather it was the other way round as it was the supporting columns which disintegrated. Quite what happened to the floors we do not know as they were always out of sight, except that significant parts turned to dust.
I suggest you perform a simple experiment using a spreadsheet. A row can represent a floor and all that is needed is Newton’s equations of motion and knowledge of his laws which you already have. You can start by making the wholly unrealistic assumption that the supporting columns had no strength and disintegrated at the merest contact and compute the descent times for each level. You can improve the model by assuming a certain degree of pulverisation along the way and material resistance. As the model collapses you compare the computed collapse times with the actuals recorded by Chandler.
Should tell you all you need to know. Simple, does not cost anything and should take no more than an hour or so.
The above is obviously addressed to Clark
Well you have surprised me. Adopting Bazant, presumably to set it up as a straw man just so you can knock it down again, was at least novel.
(sigh) Your new theory is contradicted by observation both of the collapses and of the debris; air ejections preceded perimeter toppling, and few columns were bent.
You’ve already described your spreadsheet calculations, but you refused to post the limiting case you just asked me to redo! You could start your new life of honesty by admitting the result you got.
Maybe you just prefer arguing to progress. I really can’t fathom it.
Actually, I did eventually find one single website describing the collapse sequence as I do, but I found it after I’d worked things out for myself, while looking for photographs of perimeter buckling. It seems a pretty low-traffic site, but it was nice to find even that much agreement after so much distracting nonsense.
My goodness, what a slippery character you are, Clark.
You claimed Bazant’s theory or a variation of it as your own but now it is apparently mine. I take it that means that you now recognise it as the bollocks it is.
For the record I have never proposed any theory of my own on here but tried to show the impossibility of those you were espousing and claiming as your own.
Nikko, my comment was only seconds behind yours, but as you can see it reached a similar conclusion to you over Clark’s apparent shelving of the Bazant theory(ies), that is mainstream theories. In fairness to him though I think Clark is prepared to change his opinion when he realises there might be something wrong with it.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704728
You are right John that Clark changes his “theories”, which is ok, but not without explaining why and what the new theory is. I now have absolutely no idea what it is he believes. I guess neither does Clark or else he would not be issuing a challenge to get involved in experiments that have nothing to do with the collapses. Your beer can analogy is spot on.
Nikko, my understanding was evolving for a considerable time, and may change again yet; that is as it should be of course; in science we do not accept dogma . At one point I accepted crush-down-crush-up in reaction because most Truther arguments are such nonsense (I was getting frustrated), but then I saw criticism of one-dimensional models and realised that such criticism is valid.
Bazant’s collapse progression model is essentially one-dimensional and is thus invalid, of course, and also it is probably invalidated by Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” argument. Chandler’s too is one-dimensional and therefore cannot apply to the reality, but a one-dimensional argument can invalidate another one-dimensional argument. In fact I think Chandler’s defeats all one-dimensional arguments; well done Chandler!
I don’t actually remember what I have written previously about crush-down-crush-up. I have reviewed Bazant’s free-body analysis of the tipping of the top section (this is two-dimensional), and it seems a valid approximation; there was one term I was dubious about. I’m sure I stated that I do not know mechanical engineering, specifically energy absorption during buckling of columns, well enough to pass judgement on the main argument in Bazant’s original paper, but as it is one-dimensional I have since decided to waste no further time on it. I think at one point I claimed that some argument was irrelevant because of crush-down-crush-up, but I can’t remember whether that was before I’d rejected the theory or after.
I am sorry that my learning process appeared to you to be dishonesty. It is not.
I have stated my own theory many times. It is based upon observation of the collapses.
You have just stated a theory of your own: “the floors did not break while the supporting columns remained standing, rather it was the other way round as it was the supporting columns which disintegrated”. That is a theory, albeit partial, but then all such theories are inevitably partial to some extent. I’m sorry I mistook your theory for Bazant’s crush-down-crush-up, but it does resemble that more than it does mine, because both yours and Bazant’s are based upon column failure. It is nonetheless falsified by observation, because enormous sections of perimeter fell outwards intact; obviously the columns had not disintegrated.
Would you like me to describe the collapse sequence yet again? I have done it many times, so if I do, will you promise to ask questions open-mindedly until you understand what it is that I am saying?
OK Nikko, I have just seen your comment of 22:38, so here is my description of the collapse sequence yet again. Please ask questions until you understand what I am getting at. Please note that the description is fairly broad; many details could be argued about, and variations were seen between the two Towers. I’m trying to describe the gist of the matter.
This theory takes collapse initiation as given. I doubt that explosives or any such deliberate agency was required for collapse initiation, but I don’t rule it out. Either way, the damaged zone was seen to be degrading; the perimeter was photographed bowing inward and the top section was seen to be tipping toward the damaged face, and then sudden buckling was observed as collapse initiated.
I now make an assumption that I hope you agree is reasonable. Once the top section had started its descent, the vertical columns of the top section were vanishingly unlikely to come back into line with their corresponding columns in the lower, standing section. So what would happen instead?
Downward pointing ends of upper section columns would find themselves either in empty air outside the lower section’s perimeter or inside the core, or would collide with the highest intact floor assembly that remained supported. Likewise, the upward pointing ends of the lower section perimeter would find themselves either facing the sky with no load upon them, or would be hit by the underside of the downward-moving lowest intact floor assembly of the upper section.
At a minimum of two points about the whole perimeter, and more in the core, falling horizontal ties of the top section would clash with supported horizontal ties of the lower section.
Before I go on, do you understand so far, do you agree, and do you have any questions?
Clark, I would never consider somebody changing their view as dishonest but if you quote me I would appreciate if you could do so in full to avoid giving a false impression.
I think you confuse “description” and “theory”. Above I decribed what I saw happened. It is not a theory as that needs to explain why it happened, in other words what forces acted on what to destroy the towers in the time they did. Similarly, your description does not explain anything but at one time you did have a theory when you talked about pancaking. Glad that that has now been abandoned.
Theory, description; I really don’t care so long as we work out what happened.
Look, everyone’s been “fighting” me for ages, though I kept on saying that I was trying to do everyone a favour. Could you help me out? Do John Goss’s scaling for him; he never does anything like that, you’d be setting a good example:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704749
Clark at 23.23
I completely disagree with your description. The outer perimeters were not made up of individual unattached components but of components welded or bolted together. Stay with John’s beer can example. Offset one can with respect to another and apply force to push them together. Will they slide into each other? I do not think so even if the bottoms are cut off.
Nikko, I agree. Beer can cylinders won’t slide into each other. They’ll intersect each other at two places. All the downward force that was distributed throughout the circumference will become concentrated upon the two points of intersection, so the localised force will be much, much greater than the distributed force was. Enough downward force and they’ll start slicing each other, crumpling somewhat at the intersection zone as well.
Go on, do the rescaling. How thick is the wall of a beer can scaled up to Twin Tower dimensions?
To return to my description of the collapses, I agree that the perimeter was made of components attached to each other.
So what do you think will happen next?
The ratio of the sides of a beer can to the Twin Towers is approx. 1:1000. So if the wall thickness of a beer can is 0.1mm, scaled up to the size of the Twin Towers the wall thickness would be 100mm. Does that change anything? I do not think so.
To return to my description of the collapses, I agree that the perimeter was made of components attached to each other.
So what do you think will happen next?
Assuming that more supports were damaged on one side than on the other and that the remaining supports were not strong enough to support the weight of the top section, I would expect the top section to start rotating towards the ground, while still attached at the remaining supports. How far it would rotate depends on many things so impossible to say, but there would be a lot of bending of upright beams and supports.
I would not expect the structure underneath to self destruct and collapse at 0.6g acceleration vertically down while throwing off big chunks of the structure horizontally with great force.
– “I would expect the top section to start rotating towards the ground, while still attached at the remaining supports”
Observation indicates that that is exactly what did happen.
– “How far it would rotate depends on many things so impossible to say”
But it can be estimated, and this is what Bazant’s “free body calculation” does (the update to his first paper, I think). It’s pretty simple and the calculation of the force looks valid to me. I can’t check his estimation of the available reaction force because (1) I don’t know that sort of physics (strengths of steel components) and (2) that part of the building was extensively damaged and heated, but we don’t know how badly with any accuracy.
– “I would not expect the structure underneath to self destruct”
You have to take into account how vulnerable the floor slabs were, and in turn, how vulnerable the perimeter became as it was progressively deprived of its lateral support.
Everything can be estimated but the accuracy of the estimates vary. I have better things to do than to check Bazant’s estimate. As far as I am concerned it is impossible to make a meaningful estimate because we have no idea of the internal damage.
I do not think that the floor slabs play any role as far as the upper section is concerned, except to add mass. There is exactly zero evidence that the floor slabs somehow detached and fell all the way down taking other floor slabs with them. Even if they did by some magic, there is no reason for that to cause the inner and outer vertical supports to disintegrate the way they did. Do not forget that the outside perimeter was a continuous tube from bottom to top. With the floors gone the structure would have become unstable and wobbly with some bending going on but only as far as hitting the central core.
“The ratio of the sides of a beer can to the Twin Towers is approx. 1:1000. So if the wall thickness of a beer can is 0.1mm, scaled up to the size of the Twin Towers the wall thickness would be 100mm. Does that change anything? I do not think so.”
We’re going to have to stop reciprocating calculations. I see yours predates mine in terms of minutes but comes to a similar conclusion. Let me know next time Nikko and I can do some writing instead. 😀
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-123/#comment-704798
Yes, you’ve both done some scaling and found that, relatively speaking, a beer can is at least twelve times more substantial than the Twin Tower perimeters.
Now acknowledge it!
– “I do not think that the floor slabs play any role as far as the upper section is concerned, except to add mass”
! ! !
We have metal which, relatively speaking, would have a beer can made of metal thinner than gold leaf, and you think the lateral support from the floor assemblies played no role!
– “There is exactly zero evidence that the floor slabs somehow detached and fell all the way down taking other floor slabs with them”
No but 60,000 tonnes of top section falling on them might not have left them entirely unaffected. Like they might have been smashed to bits, no?
– “there is no reason for that to cause the inner and outer vertical supports to disintegrate the way they did”
THE PERIMETER AND CORE DID NOT DISINTEGRATE! They fell outward and broke into sections, stripping the bolts in the box column ends. They were found lying all over the site and beyond. You can watch them falling on the videos! They took weeks to remove. Honesty, PLEASE.
There’s nowt wrong with a bit of independent work that comes to the same conclusion.
Yes, you’ve both done some scaling and found that, relatively speaking, a beer can is at least twelve times more substantial than the Twin Tower perimeters.
Now acknowledge it!
Sorry Clark, but you are not being very scientific. First of all, aluminium has different properties to steel. Secondly, the Tower perimeter walls were made from box sections which have superior moment of inertia and other properties compared to plain walls.
If you are trying to make the point that somehow the perimeter walls were not up to their job you need to provide better evidence than just a comparison with a beer can.
THE PERIMETER AND CORE DID NOT DISINTEGRATE! They fell outward and broke into sections, stripping the bolts in the box column ends. They were found lying all over the site and beyond. You can watch them falling on the videos! They took weeks to remove. Honesty, PLEASE.
If falling outward and breaking into sections is not disintegration, then I do not know what is. You could have added that some of the disintegrating bits were ejected horizontally over 100s of feet at great velocities. I am still waiting for a meaningful explanation from you where these forces came from.
But let’s assume that you are correct and that the floor slabs from the upper section, detached and fell through the inside of the towers smoothly onto the floor slabs in the lower section. We are back to the pancaking scenario, which Newton tells us that quite soon it will not be able to keep up with the actual acceleration of the collapse of 0.6g. Even in the unrealistic scenario of zero material resistance.
You really need to do some real physics to make a convincing case.
Nikko, you seem like a liar to me. Here’s why.
* You used the word “disintegration” which, given the context, could be taken as agreement with nutball Judy Wood. To gain respect with me, avoid ambiguities like that.
* Mostly, only light pieces like aluminium cladding were “ejected” at high velocities. You again create a false impression of explosives where no evidence for them exists. Toppling of large sections is bound to result in fair velocities, as will the sudden release of elasticity in bowed steel, and collisions of lighter objects struck by heavier objects. You ignore all these, and also the fact that hardly any trajectory started above the horizontal as would be expected from explosives.
But worst of all, you lie about your own results. We went through your spreadsheet model, and after I had corrected your mistake (which I now believe to have been deliberate) of starting the collapse from the top rather from the damaged zone, far from running out of energy the collapse reached ground in sixteen seconds (with an arbitrary loss that you had added and refused to remove) and the energy of deformation from inelastic collisions was equivalent to considerable numbers of sticks of dynamite.
I am prepared to discuss technically, but if you behave dishonestly then it is just a waste of time.
Clark, you are back you your usual accusations and waffling to divert from the discussion. You have demonstrated that time and time again. You act a fragile and sensitive soul, but are quite happy to accuse people of lying even over the meaning of the word “disintegration”. What that’s got to do with Judy Wood is completely beyond me, but I am absolutely gutted that I lost the respect of the waffler and accuser in chief.
Somebody mentioned that you should look in the mirror when you make accusations. I made no mention of explosives but only asked where the force that ejected the objects horizontally, which undoubtedly existed, came from. An honest debater, who claims to know what happened, would have answered factually. The Towers did not topple but went straight down. Are you still claiming that they swung out like a skater losing his footing? And your talk of elasticity is just bull. What horizontal are you on about? Do not forget you are the one who mentioned explosives.
And Clark, you are kidding yourself if you think we went through my spreadsheet. I mentioned some of the results but that is about all. What you say is not true.
What I offered you many times previously and is still on the table is for you to do your own model and we can then compare results. I guess you will ran away again as you have always done because your physics is only waffle and accusations.
To me you seem transparent. All your questions lead the same way. I have been patient. You have too little integrity to interest me further. If I remain in this world it will be no thanks to you. Goodbye, Nikko.
Want to know what I think? Anyway, I doubt the usefullness and the health benefits of arguning over the unknowable. If and when you do learn the truth it will be at the same time as me and as no result of your efforts. All this effort. All these years. The forfeited alternatives. When you could all be anarchists instead.
If you’re wondering I am aware I am projecting my constant doubts about my relationship with blogs. But you should all be anarchists anyway, for the good of everything and all that.
The above is obviously addressed to no one.
The above is obviously addressed to everyone.
The above is obviously addressed to Glenn.
I’m desperate to not click thunderbird. Come on, take a break from the head fuck dead end that is 911. Ask me any question. Anything you like about anarchism. What do you actually know? What the fuck do I know?
For anarchism, you’re needed on the Catalonia thread.
True. I should try again maybe. People are using the word not understanding how they reveal ignorance of even basic understanding of anarchism. Fair enough, it’s marginal.
Well not fair enough actually. You should really know the basics of a subject before you argue over it. Makes sense really.
Yesterday, after I pointed out that someone was misusing the word they then proceeded to lecture me about how the anarchists gave power to franco. Hilarious.
OK, outline anarchism. I’m interested; Chomsky identifies with anarcho-syndicalism, and he’s made more sense about 9/11 than most.
But in particular, I’d like to know if such a system would be robust against the obvious human tendency to break into groups which generate and protect specific mythologies.
I could explain how anarchism aspires to limit the power accorded to individuals and institutions so people may blossom in creative, social, bliss. If that’s any use.
But I’m not sure what you mean by “generate and protect specific mythologies”
What, you mean you can’t recognise what goes on on this thread? Anyone challenging any conspiracy theory is rounded upon by a cabal of conspiracy theorists who enjoy nothing better than accusing the challenger of protecting mass murderers!
Limiting organised power is not the only problem to be solved. Humans self organise into ideologies, each with their own conflicting mythologies. The members are eager to abuse those who won’t conform.
“The members are eager to abuse those who won’t conform.”
It can’t be a surprise to you. You’re on a thread trying to convince people you have failed to concince for years. You’ve had all the arguments. This literally can go no where worth going.
Getting distressed while arguing the unknowable day after day. You know it’s a shit dip Clark. You have yet to overcome your compulsion to drive people away. You obsess over differences. You take offence. You won’t let go. Just now you had a dig at me on the other thread out of the blue over some perceived injury from years ago. Christ Clark, try to think of positive things. I wish you well mate but I don’t know what to say except this: you’re your own worse enemy mate. Life’s hard. Really fucking hard, we all struggle. I know it’s a cliche but take up a martial art. Seriously. I think that would be great for you.
Oh, so you do recognise it. You could have just said so.
Like conspiracy theorists refusing to acknowledge their own bias, you have continued to maintain that you were just having a “robust political argument”, not as horrible but just as selfish as Macky’s accusations of delusion, control freakery, projection, self pity and dishonesty when confronted with awkward facts and rational argument.
No I’m not bloody letting go until you admit it and apologise, because if I let anyone get away with anything they just do it over and over again. It’s just human nature, the subconscious motivation to dominate combined with stimulation of the neural and hormonal reward networks, and I ain’t got fuck all but me, mister.
Now if anarchism has a remedy for this, I want to hear it please.
For instance, how would an anarchist university system protect against being overrun by conspiracy theories? The system we have obviously has its problems, or Bazant’s theory wouldn’t be accorded the authority that it is. But the academic system works a whole lot better than conspiracy theory websites and social media.
Welcome to the thread, Phil. Part of the reason I’m still here is that I’m looking for answers in the field you’ve raised, and the massive polarities with clear cut answers regarding Twin Tower demolition theory provide a very clear set of examples. So thanks for taking the line you have.
And what do you mean, “arguing the unknowable”? You protecting your popularity here? Progressive collapse isn’t unknowable, it’s as close to certainty as you can get.
Always goes down well at parties.
How about early christianity being communist? I’ve got good shit on that too. I will even recommend the egalitarian pre neolithic for those I have yet to bore at length about this.
No borders? No dogs no masters? No money? The Spanish revolution! Now that’s topical.
Having met you Phil and asked you about your anarchy it appears totally different from any anarchy I ever read about. I always thought anarchy was some kind of opposition to monarchy, or even its overthrow, but you did not come across as one who might condone the execution of the Romanovs, or, God Bless Her, Her Royal Highness. 🙂
Dr David Kelly’s body has been removed from it’s not so last resting place possibly because the family did not like the attention it was attracting.
Not sure how much attention his grave attracted but removing it will not make the cover up go away or public interest in it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4789869/mystery-as-body-of-sexed-up-wmd-dossier-scandal-dr-david-kelly-is-dug-up/#comments
The JFK files won’t make the JFK cover up go away, nothing will make the 911 cover up go away.
Cover ups don’t even go away when they are properly investigated by governments and token justice dispensed.
The lasting effect of cover ups is erosion of trust and respect in governments, the rule of law and the justice system.
The cause of Kelly’s death was never proved to the standard of proof that the law required then and now, in fact no standard of proof was applied. I can’t prove he was murdered but I can prove the circumstances of his death were covered up.
I know for certain the truth of 911 has not been told by the authorities, I can’t prove explosive charges were used to drop the buildings that does not mean the evidence does not exist. But whilst cover ups remain in place that evidence will never be properly investigated by the proper authorities.
And it the ramification of that crime that has the most serious and dangerous ramifications to society.
The cover-up start within each individual, with self-deception.
Advice from an atheist – Pray.
And ignorance, where does that start?
Self deception, laziness, and the desire for acceptability within a group.
Of course ignorance is the default state, but the above accounts for the general lack of motivation to escape it.
There are a lot more groups than just the two acknowledged by most on this thread. The “most on this thread” are a group, too, and they encourage and often even attempt to enforce each other’s ignorance.
@ Peter Beswick October 29, 2017 at 15:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkZf4MXjLAQ
How can the totally corrupt an depraved ‘Leaders’ of our countries ever allow the truth to come out?
It’s up to US – ‘We The People’ – to do our best to expose the depredations and abominations of our ‘Great Leaders’.
Another article about a false flag operation; Israelis posing as CIA to recruit, arm & fund Islamic terrorists to kill Iranian nuclear scientists;
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/13/false-flag/?hc_ref=ARQcEWf5oewavpmB8-3wN1lsmDbQL4lMP2JTB3XP3G2jkehhGQG5ol4MQppwXLzDkxE
Two more JFK links; the first from PCR, which contain the depressing line, “My answer is also that it doesn’t matter what we know or what the facts are, the official story will never be changed.”
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/10/28/the-kennedy-assassination/
This second link pulls no punches, and names name, one in particular;
http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/10/jfk-jr-told-the-world-who-murdered-his-father-but-nobody-was-paying-attention-5/
Here a timely article, that should give some here pause for thought;
https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/29/conspiracies-dont-happen-here/
Nice that you agree with Craig and me for once, Macky; follow a dozen or so comments from this one:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/10/twas-good-ship-venus/#comment-704603
Not sure who “here” needs “pause for thought”; I suspect it’s yet another dig at me in an attempt to boost your own cred, but I criticised the corporate media for pushing conspiracy theories days ago.
Probably tin foil blocking the aural passages as usual.
Some good links there Macky, thanks.