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).
Clark, I thought you would have had the common sense to stop the stream of insults against John and me, but obviously not. Clearly, we do not agree on the physics but as far as I am concerned you are the one who always runs away from a technical discussion. Despite your claims to the contrary, I am not aware that you have demonstrated any physics or proved anything on this forum.
As a self-professed critical thinker, can you enlighten me and explain how the debris from WTC 1 got into the lobby of WTC 7, which you say caused the damage there.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-124/#comment-705418
In another post recently, you claimed that only the lighter aluminium cladding was ejected horizontally from the Towers. Is this what caused the WTC 7 damage? I am particularly baffled how debris got into the lobby, as there was the WTC 6 building in between.
Also, I do not agree with you that only cladding was ejected horizontally from the Towers. We see a section of the steel perimeter walling embedded in the Banker’s Trust Building and we see massive damage to the SW corner of WTC 7 from floor 18 downwards. No way could cladding have done that. I have asked you repeatedly what created the forces in a gravity collapse that ejected the perimeter sections sideways and so far your explanation was to say that the Towers “toppled” or “swung like a skater losing his footing”. I am sure that you can do a lot better than that.
I’ve lost track of the number of times you claimed to do physics in the last few days, so rather than waste time on insulting people why don’t you put up or shut up. Take WTC1 and WTC 7 as all the distances are known, i.e. the horizontal distance between the buildings is 112m and the vertical distances can be easily computed by considering floor levels.
It is a simple Newtonian problem to compute initial velocities of the falling debris and hence the force needed to accelerate it from rest to that velocity. For now you can ignore any forces needed to break the perimeter walling apart. That can be added later. Once you have computed the forces required, you can move onto how they were created.
Please note that long winded descriptions without numbers and reference to how they were calculated (including assumptions) is waffle, not proof. You can keep it very short and sweet and definitely no need to go into number crunching detail as that can be easily checked.
Looking very much to being enlightened – you see when I do it I do not get the right result.
Nikko, I may answer this later. I have been more concerned with ethics this evening. But I have some corrections, and some hints.
The corrections – I have never claimed that the towers toppled. I say that after the floor assemblies were stripped out by the internal collapse, the now unstabilised perimeter walls toppled outward, breaking into sections under their own weight by stripping the bolts in the ends of the box column sections. Bolt-stripping is consistent with the debris. My analogy of losing your footing on ice and your bum landing much where your feet were, was in answer to claims that the top sections should have fallen over the side of the remaining stumps rather than starting to descend through them.
If my language is ever unclear please try to work toward clarification rather than misrepresenting my claims as if to ridicule them in front of the demolition theorists, who make up the majority in present company. They really don’t need any encouragement, at least, not around here.
The hints –
(1) The perimeter can be seen to topple in sections, some very large. Rather than assuming a high ejection velocity as could be produced by (massive) explosive charges, work out how far that toppling would have moved the tops of the sections laterally.
(2) Whether explosives caused the collapses or not, internal air would inevitably have been ejected. NIST calculated supersonic air ejection speeds. Consider those air expulsions at various heights, and estimate how far that could have driven debris laterally.
(3) The start of the collapses was relatively gentle; it was shortly afterwards that a great confusion of motion at the interface zone between top and bottom sections threw large quantities of debris outward. Compression followed by sudden breakage or release of columns would be expected to throw material sideways. From the collapse videos estimate how far the top section had fallen by the time that complex motion became evident. From weight of top section times distance dropped times 0.36 (Chandler) calculate the total energy of destruction released by that time, and compare it with initial energy required for various objects to reach various distances.
But I can predict that there will not be a shortage in the energy budget. We have already calculated available gravitational potential energy; was it not comparable to about 160 tonnes of TNT, just for the floor concrete? Obviously, much less had been released earlier in the collapses, but any feasible quantity of explosives always pales into insignificance compared with the potential energy released by collapse. This is consistent when compared with commercial controlled demolitions; the explosives just get the structure falling, and then the material is broken up by the dissipation of gravitational potential energy. This is why verinage demolitions look so similar to explosive demolitions; the major energy source is the same in both.
The people on this thread wish my mind to be destroyed.
But my mind is me.
And I wish to satisfy them.
Clark, this is an internet discussion forum – lighten up. I already said that there is probably more we agree on than disagree.
Nikko, thank you again.
I find it difficult to describe how difficult I find this, in the face of what seems like almost unanimous disapproval. Expressing rational arguments isn’t too difficult, though it is very challenging when a handful of people need each only copy and paste a few excerpts from the thousands available around the Web to build what looks like a convincing case, whereas there’s just little old me on my own left with the task of pointing out the subtle distortions, gross exaggerations and outright falsities from which a false picture of reality is being constructed and expanded.
It is the emotional load which is worse; the sense of unanimous disapproval is really difficult to bear. It combines very badly with my life long feelings of worthlessness that are the legacy from my family and my religious upbringing.
I can just hear the unspoken jeering of “well get off the thread if you find it so distressing”. But there is something very wrong about that. I believe these people primarily want to win, and finding the truth be damned. But they seem of that urge to win. The urge comes from the id, as it has done for millions of years before evolution even produced humans, but it gets rationalised by the ego into “fearless truth seeking”, a sense of noble independence in the face of oppression.
It isn’t right that a discussion about 9/11 effectively become a no-go area for the majority of the public. It isn’t right that little pockets of the Web be taken over by what amount to impromptu gangs who control what may and may not be argued lest the person be othered as “having an infantile need to trust authority” or as “working for the conspiracy”.
I have a whole horde of people just waiting to leap on any detail of any pro-progressive collapse argument I post – it’s like a pack of fucking hyenas, opportunistically pulling bits off here and there, when technical arguments take time to construct. Imagine trying to build anything with that going on. They have absolutely no conscience how they go about it, either; they consider it completely fair game to pretend that I have no suspicions about WTC7 and therefore must be an idiot. “Drive him from the thread; he’s a shill anyway” is the obvious unexpressed subtext.
Yet all of these people hardly ever express any criticism of each other’s assertions, no matter how outrageous. Being the target of this cooperative othering, it of course offends my sense of justice. But it also saps my faith in human nature. When RobG turned up here, no one showed the least disapproval when he repeatedly suggested that the best thing to do would be simply to kill me. Yes, kill me. Sorry, but that’s how fascists “win” their arguments; just silence the opposition. Permanently. And not one of my opposition expressed the slightest disapproval. “Oh, Rob’s not serious” or “Rob’s just drunk” seems to be the attitude, but if he’d said the same thing about “Islamic” extremists they’d have been down on him like a ton of bricks, revealing their excuses as partisan and dishonest.
The sad fact is, this thread has virtually nothing to do with 9/11. The people here are not interested in 9/11. In fact, they’re anti-interested. Anyone expressing any well sourced belief or opinion about 9/11 will be othered, and driven from the thread if possible. Anyone expressing any belief or opinion that contradicts a news story about a mass killing will be welcomed and encouraged. It doesn’t matter whether the contradiction describes the mass killing as much worse, or completely fabricated; both are welcomed and encouraged so long as the authorities and news media are demonised. It’s so simply predictable that it would be a joke if it wasn’t so boring.
And where am I to go, what am I to do? I’m between the Devil and the deep blue sea. On the one side I have you lot, and on the other I have a system that does nothing about Bazant at the top of the academic system with his papers that contradict plain observation. It is as if truth has been entirely expunged from the world by ideologues. It’s as if I escaped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses to find that there is simply no rational world outside at all.
This is why I’m lacking hope.
Typos:
But they seem unaware of that urge to win. That urge comes from the id…
– – – –
I doubt anyone will engage with this comment. All will just ignore it, sweep it under the carpet, just like the media and politicians do with inconvenient material. Same shit, different arseholes.
Of course the disapproval won’t go away. People have backed off merely because they know I am suicidal. Cynically I suspect that they are more worried about their reputations than their consciences, none of them want to be liable to accusations of having “pushed me over the edge”. But that is entirely the wrong attitude, and I do not have respect for the sudden silence that has broken out. I strongly suspect that some are hoping I’ll get on with it so I cease to challenge their myth creation; after all, they have been making it clear for a long time that I’m either some enemy agent, or so stupid as to be worthless. And what tingles up the spine for having encouraged a suicide; better than going to a horror movie, and cheaper, too.
No, the silence is ominous, precisely because there are no voices of concern, save one.
The gang back off from their kicking, looking down at the victim on the floor, one of the worthless outcasts, teeth scattered on the pavement. Is it dead? If it is, they can share in the tribal glory, but no one could be held solely responsible – manslaughter at worst…
The silence is indicative of cowardice rather than conscience because I should have been accorded respect all along. It should never have come to this. Instead of trying to destroy and suppress my ideas, my intellectual essence, you should have explored it, discovered what motivated it and how I saw things fitting together. You know what my politics are, what ethics I hold; I have been commenting at this site for years. You know that I have contributed to and helped maintain this space that you all make use of, but that has counted for nothing. Less than nothing, I expect; I expect that there is considerable resentment that I moderated here and restrained some of your excesses against other commenters, so you wish to punish me – “kill the pig!”
What a sad but terrifying thing the human species is, forever tottering on the edge of fascism and mob-rule. You think the evil is somewhere “out there”, confined to politicians, police, journalists, and a secret cabal that can never be identified, pulling all the strings?
Think again, and look into your hearts. The Devil is much closer to home than you dare to suspect.
If I have given anyone pause for thought, there is no shame in expressing it; quite the contrary. There are no bad people, only bad behaviours and attitudes.
For fuc*s sake, wake up to reality. If you feel suicidal, check this out: https://www.samaritans.org/your-community; that’s a better bet for you.
I am not making light of your possible problems – but on the fuc*ing other hand I am not impressed.
If you were to see my arms, throat, legs, and chest, you would believe me when I say I have ‘Been there, done that, got the T-shirt’.
This is a 9/11 thread, not a bloody ‘aching heart’ thread.
I wish you well, but I will continue to argue my case. God bless.
Then argue your case properly, not by exaggeration, rhetoric and demonstrations to the hostile crowd.
The reason Samaritans are there is because people on the whole don’t listen. But go ahead; argue for lack of respect and the right to dismiss me as a shill or an agent. Fine Paul, fine. You’re very pure, and deserve your place next to God.
“The people on this thread wish my mind to be destroyed.”
What absolute nonsense and paranoia. At least speaking for myself. It’s your silly arguments I suspect they want to see destroyed.
I have to endorse Nikko’s comment about this being an internet discussion thread and not a forum for your personal problems, though I sympathise.
You have never come up with a proper argument to support your ludicrous science. You have run away from those who do explore the physical possibilities of why the towers collapsed, people like Jonathan H. Cole. You want to repeat the experiments hoping no doubt that Newton can be proved wrong over this. Well he can’t and the quicker you learn that the quicker you will have some kind of peace of mind.
Others here, apart from Glenn and the ever-absent Kempe, want to get at the truth of what really happened on 9/11, not what the mainstream media, and those who own MSM, want you to believe. Sorry to have to be blunt.
Having written that I do think in your heart you are a good person. Everybody’s mind and person is precious. I doubt anybody wants to see any comment-maker destroyed either in mind or body. Arguments are different.
– “the quicker you learn that the quicker you will have some kind of peace of mind”
How sinister. “Conform, and be happy”.
You lie, John Goss. I have not “run away” from Cole’s experiment. I have proposed an experiment to test the validity of Cole’s. The truth is the opposite of your assertion. It is YOU who has run away, time and time again.
Do not lie. And on a personal level, stop lying about me.
– nonsense, paranoia, silly arguments, ludicrous science, hoping no doubt that Newton can be proved wrong, others here want to get at the truth
These are insults, attacks upon the person. I will give you another chance. You have repeatedly claimed that no experts support progressive collapse of the Twin Towers. Tell us how many you have asked and their experience, and if you can remember, tell us what they said.
I have a further test of Cole’s experiments; it requires no expense or equipment. Will you engage, or will you continue to deride my ability?
Clark, as the video below posted by Node repeats, if it does not agree with experiment it’s wrong. Jonathan Cole at his barn has a lot more resources than me to experiment, and from what I have seen his experiments confirm repeatedly that Newton was right. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It’s good enough for me.
Birmingham University Psychology Department year after year did rat experiments putting a new batch of rats into the psychological torture and trauma other rats had been through before. The results were always similar. The department, although it already had the findings, repeated this experiments with which students had to comply. (My understanding is that any student refusing to participate, and there were some, would not be eligible for a first.)
I don’t want to repeat Cole’s experiments. As to:
“I have a further test of Cole’s experiments; it requires no expense or equipment. Will you engage, or will you continue to deride my ability?”
Why don’t you just say what it is. How can anybody know whether he or she would wish to engage if you make a secret of it?
STOP LYING about me, John. I do not present anything that contradicts Newton, so stop insinuating that I do.
I haven’t described my test of Cole’s experiment because experience indicates that you will simply disengage, and resurrect some other zombie factoid instead on a different part of thread; you have done this countless times. It will then be ME that gets accused of running away. I want your commitment before I continue.
Will you cooperate in testing the validity of Cole’s experiments?
And you have repeatedly claimed that no experts support progressive collapse of the Twin Towers. Tell us how many you have asked and their experience, and if you can remember, tell us what they said. Stop running away.
Nikko, remember this. You don’t want to be part of the gang giving out a kicking.
“And you have repeatedly claimed that no experts support progressive collapse of the Twin Towers. Tell us how many you have asked and their experience, and if you can remember, tell us what they said. Stop running away.”
In actual fact I challenged you to find 10 architects and engineers who currently support the official version. That was because for some illogical reason you had come to the conclusion that all those who had not signed up to A&E911 truth did not agree with A&E911 truth. You kept referring to this ‘majority’ over and over again even though several of us pointed out that such logic was flawed.
More dishonesty. Every lie is another kick in the teeth from gang member Goss.
I found you more than ten, so you moved the goal posts by adding the word “current”. Now you have removed that stipulation again.
How many experts have YOU asked, John? Stop running away.
Clark, I suggested a few days ago that you take a break from this. I meant it kindly. There is no point beating yourself up over this. I suggest you give it a break for a while. I promise we won’t solve 9/11 while you are away 🙂
No. I refuse.
I find it no surprise that you’d like to drive me from the thread. I thought I mentioned that?
You are of course free to engage with any of the questions I have asked you and the points I have made to you recently. In fact I think it would be respectful of you do so; I have been asking for some time.
I am currently reading Irrationality (1992 and 2007) by Stuart Sutherland,
ISBN 978-1-905177-07-3
and I am about to begin chapter 4, Conformity.
Anyone care to investigate Sutherland’s links with the New World Order to see if his book was “placed” pre-9/11 as a weapon to be used against those unfairly smeared by my colleagues at the CIA as “conspiracy theorists”?
‘My Car Just Sabotaged AGAIN! – 7th Blowout + Las Vegas Shooting Investigation News’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbRaHBvdp2A
This guy is getting really harassed because of his video exposures of Vegas, paedophilia etc.
I thought you said this was “a 9/11 thread”. One rule for you and another for me. Why?
@ Clark November 3, 2017 at 13:52
When did I ever object to you being ‘Off Topic’? Ever? Evidence?
Oh ,sorry, I forgot you don’t ‘do’ evidence.
Suffice it to say, Vegas is so linked to the 9/11 ‘False Flag’ sh*t it ain’t funny.
Oooh, silly me. I forgot – you want to control this thread, as a private ‘Fiefdom’.
As my stepfather used to say, ‘tough titty’,
God bless.
– “When did I ever object to you being ‘Off Topic’? Ever?”
– “This is a 9/11 thread, not a bloody ‘aching heart’ thread”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-124/#comment-705618
– “Oh ,sorry, I forgot you don’t ‘do’ evidence.”
Yeah right. Kick, kick, kick and lie, lie, lie.
Surprise, surprise: linking to sites that say cardboard boxes of mains plugs are “special fuses for remote controlled demolition” is NOT evidence of anything except your own gullibility, bias, or lack of effort. Etc. etc. etc. Any amount of false stuff, you’ve got it, you post it here; just self indulgence.
So can I safely assume that none of you “Truthers” have bothered looking at any of these?
https://www.youtube.com/user/WTCFOIAVideos/videos
Calling OUT Bravo-7: Firefighters’ Perspectives of High-Rise Fires and 9/11 (HD version)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtJI9kcWwHE
The first 15 minutes or so are a general introduction to firefighting in high rise buildings and some basic physics about freefall before the film focuses on 911.
What is the relevance of free fall? What is its relevance to fire-fighting?
What is the relevance of free fall to 9/11? None of the buildings that fell on 9/11 were known to be in free fall.
Did you watch it? The reason it showed sky-divers in so-called free-fall was to explain that free-fall does not exist except in a vacuum.
What is the relevance of free fall to 9/11?
Correct. So how could the downward acceleration of the roof-line of WTC7 have exceeded the rate of free fall, as measured by Chandler? What does that imply?
I know the answer. Do you?
Its easy to explain and easy for the public to understand the term, they fell at free fall speed, which is a feature of controlled demolition, but you quibble over a few seconds as a way to dispute they fell at free fall speed, as if it made a difference to the general point being made, that they fell in seconds. This is your way, in your mind, to dispute they fell due to controlled demolition! But your dancing on a pin head, as the fact they fell in seconds proves controlled demolition.
Then you argue about the definition of controlled demolition, saying unless its done in textbook controlled conditions its not controlled demolition, as if it made a difference to the general point made, that it required explosives to collapse WT7 and disintegrate the entire two towers into dust.
By focusing on what you think is a literal meaning of words used, rather than the way they are spoken and used to explain events, is your way of disputing the truth. For example if I were to say its raining cats and dogs, you would look outside, fail to see any cats and dogs, and call me a liar, despite being fully aware that the term is used to denote heavy rain.
– “they fell at free fall speed, which is a feature of controlled demolition”
No it is not. You have been deceived by Truther propaganda.
Controlled demolition is demolition which is controlled; it is a commercial service. It is not possible to control demolition in uncontrolled circumstances. You have been taken in by a false Truther sound-bite.
Here are demolitions without explosives. They produce copious dust. Therefore dust is not evidence of explosives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
They fell in seconds, which is a feature of controlled demolition, which involves pre-rigged demolition, and the dust, its content and the way it was expelled is evidence of a destructive power that may technically not be called explosives.
Wrong. The dust, the destruction of materials, are evidence of the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy, and then the dissipation of that kinetic energy into deformation of materials, sound, and heat. The video clips I linked show that no force but gravity is necessary. Do you understand?
Two more demolitions without explosives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY
Note the similarities to the Twin Towers. Rapid collapse. Some dust released during collapse. Copious dust released as collapse arrested by ground. The floor assemblies of the Twin Towers were predominantly concrete, like these buildings.
Note also the telling differences. No steel perimeter to peel outwards after collapse of the concrete. No steel core to remain standing longest.
The collapses of the Twin Towers were consistent with progressive collapse under gravity.
We’ve been through verinage demolitions before. No structural steel building has been demolished by a verinage demolition to my knowledge. Nor do I believe it could be.
“The Verinage Technique Characteristics:
1) Lower floors are often pre weakened beforehand.
2) Hydraulic presses are used to remove all vertical structural supports at the same time.
3) Collapse does not happen anywhere close to free fall.
4) No Pyroclastic cloud.
5) Building components aren’t flown through the air laterally.
6) The building falls into its own footprint leaving huge chunks of debris and concrete. Not dust.
7) This technique does not work on Steel framed buildings. It only works on buildings with load bearing walls, not steel columns.
Debunkers forget to mention any of these characteristics when explaining the Verinage technique.
The Verinage technique only helps validate that what happened on 9/11 was physically impossible without the aid of explosives.”
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-comparisons/examples-of-controlled-demolition/
1) The Twin Towers’ floor assemblies were notably weak as designed.
2) A passenger aircraft plus massive fire achieved collapse initiation.
3) Watch the video I linked; the collapse is fast.
4) There was no fire in the video linked, whereas there was massive fire in the Twin Towers.
5) There was little steel in the structures in the linked video. In the Twin Towers, compression of perimeter steel columns followed by sudden release or breakage threw material sideways at the collapse interface zones. There was also the much greater height of the buildings leading to extremely high speed air ejection, blasting debris sideways.
6) No dust? Watch the damn video! The much greater height of the Twin Towers meant far more gravitational potential energy which meant greater collapse speed which meant more crushing and pulverisation as the collapses were arrested by the ground.
7) The fastest collapse fronts in the Twin Towers passed down through the predominately concrete floor assemblies. The columns were not crushed.
Nothing forgotten. Care to engage with my description of these physical dynamics? If I wrote something unscientific, please point it out NOW, instead of pretending there was something later.
No answer.
But the same argument will be resurrected, round and round and round. Zombie factoids; forever undead for those who lack proper arguments.
“343 of our murdered brothers are calling out for justice.”
What a tragedy that those who put their lives at risk in trying to protect the rest of us should be ignored. I have nephew who is a firefighter. When I consider those deaths I realise tha in other circumstances at another time and place he could have been one of them. Great truthseeking video. Thanks for posting Node.
I wonder why comments have been disabled.
Yes, I wonder why comments are disabled, too. To keep angry New York fire-fighters from commenting is my guess; the “Truth” movement is NOT popular with them, they certainly don’t come out to support Alex Jones in New York on the anniversaries of 9/11.
This is why I do not wish to engage you. The film was made by firefighters. One who spoke was just like you originally opposed to truthers claiming any alternative scenario to the official one. It took time. It was only when he looked into reality that he realised his original belief was wrong.
You see, you never, or very rarely accept the findings of videos if they do not agree with your ‘unscientific’ theories. So in your mind there is a hidden majority supporting your view. The hidden majority of firefighters who are not allowed to comment thanks to YouTube. The hidden majority of architects and engineers who support the official view.
As to your knowledge of firefighting it is as suspect as your knowledge of physics. Had you watched the first 15 minutes of the video, instead of skimping, you would have had your question about free-fall answered. You would also have learnt what happens to high-rise buildings which have burnt for many hours.
What I present is not unscientific. That is an attack on the person. If you find a statement of mine which is scientifically wrong, cite and link it and I will correct it.
I seem to remember that you have shown disrespect for fire fighters. The senior fire fighters criticised the lightweight design of the buildings, and I think you dismissed them as government shills. Here is the page in question; the fire fighters’ opinions of the design is very, very clear:
http://www.oilempire.us/wtc-design.html
I am well aware of tall buildings that have burned without undergoing full collapse; several however have suffered partial collapse. You know that I know this because we have discussed it previously. Stop misrepresenting my knowledge; it seems an attempt to create the false impression that I am ignorant. You use this unfair technique frequently and repeatedly. If you need to deceive and discredit to make your case, your case is probably wrong.
“I seem to remember that you have shown disrespect for fire fighters. . The senior fire fighters criticised the lightweight design of the buildings, and I think you dismissed them as government shills.”
There is no doubt that I believed the twin towers and building 7 to be soundly constructed but this is another total misrepresentation. It is why nobody want to discuss with you. You had better find out where you think I might have said such a thing or withdraw. You call me a liar repeatedly but I think you need to start looking inwardly.
I already expressed my uncertainty when I wrote “I seem to remember”. I have nothing to retract.
I more strongly remember that you accused two senior mechanical engineers of lying on behalf of the US government. Charles Thornton and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
What do you say to the senior fire-fighters’ criticism on the page I linked? Stop running away.
“I already expressed my uncertainty when I wrote “I seem to remember”. I have nothing to retract.”
So all we need to do to try to discredit someone is to put before a statement “I seem to remember”. It matters not to you whether it is right or wrong/ A bit like your science. 😀
IF you didn’t, then sorry.
You most certainly DID so smear Charles Thornton and Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.
If there’s something wrong with my science, point it out and I will correct it. STOP smearing me personally.
And I see you have run away from critical consideration of Cole’s experiment. Keep your 😀 and shove it.
There you go again. I distinctly recall having praised Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl for his morality in not wishing to be part of the NIST team because it required that he be sworn to secrecy.
John, good on you for that, and I apologise for the false accusation.
So do you regard Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl as having integrity?
“So do you regard Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl as having integrity?”
What I praised him for on that occasion shows that he does. He was first to investigate the aftermath of 9/11 and perhaps some of his judgment was coloured by what most people thought to be a terrorist attack from people from outside of the USA. What he thinks today I don’t know.
Are you aware of his criticisms of the design of the Twin Towers, and his computer simulation of aircraft impacts? All early work.
If people would only face the reality of 9/11, we’d have exposed the neocon-Saudi alliance by now. The Libya deception couldn’t have happened, nor the proxy war on Syria:
Revealing the 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo the Entire US-Saudi Alliance — Sen. Bob Graham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWlZnnEbtuc
MODS, if the parent comment is a problem, please edit out the offending content rather than deleting the whole thing in order to save my important replies.
A new page and Clark has already taken over in his perpetual defence of officialdom. He has every right to express his views.
MODS, please let his comments stand! 🙂
I do not defend officialdom.
That is an attack upon me the person. Kick, kick, kick.
I criticise officialdom for what it HAS done, rather than popularising straw man arguments that give it cover, which is what you are so foolishly doing.
A sequence of comments has been deleted, though I asked the moderators to preserve it. A commenter arrived using the name “Sanity” saying that I, this site, and its moderators would be “held to account” for the recent attack on Raqqa. It told me that due to the emotional distress I have been suffering, I should be doing something about the Tories cuts to the mental health service rather than commenting as I do on this thread. No one else on the thread defended me against this allegation of supporting warfare. Instead John Goss assisted “Sanity’s” mental kicking by accusing me of “defending officialdom”; see above.
Kick, kick, kick.
The gang back off from their kicking, looking down at the victim on the floor, one of the worthless outcasts, teeth scattered on the pavement. Is it dead? If it is, they can share in the tribal glory, but no one could be held solely responsible – manslaughter at worst…
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-124/#comment-705611
WHY IF YOU ARE A TROOFER YOU ARE OBLIGED TO BE A NO-PLANER 🙂
When I first got into 9/11 truth the definition of a pariah was someone who believed in no-planes. Troofer groups would explicitly outlaw such discussion, no-planers were the worst of the worst.
I remember seeing a documentary called September Clues which advanced this thesis. I thought it had to be nonsense.
But over the years I have come to suspect that when a lot of vitriol is poured onto a particular theory, it may well be because it is the nearest to the truth.
So I took another look at September Clues and although I cannot claim to be able to judge with complete certainty, it does appear to make a very good case that the footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers was faked.
What struck me was how crap the footage looks. How phony. That is the clue.
If the intention had been to create a massive psychological shock with which to railroad the people into the pre-ordained war agenda, we should have been treated to the most spectacular TV footage ever seen. After all, if a fully loaded 757 was going to crash into the Twin Towers, and you knew about it, you would make sure you had best quality cameras trained on the Towers that morning. It would have been easy to come up with some pretext to justify the fact that you were filming.
You could for example have been filming a documentary about the changing skyline of New York. It would have been easy. So I have to think the fact that they did not do that was because they could not. Because there were no planes.
When you think about it, this operation would have been impossible to pull off with real planes.
I’m sure years before when the plan was originated in the Philippines, and called Project Bojinka, or Big Wedding, they thought wow yes of course, fly a plane into the Twin Towers. But all the pilots I have seen interviewed say to fly a 757 into a skyscraper is very, very difficult. You do not aim them like a car, it is more like piloting a supertanker and even the best flyers agree that hitting a skyscraper would actually be very difficult. Not impossible, but difficult, and you might easily miss.
And what happens then? What if the hijackers missed? This would be very serious, not just because poor Larry Silverstein would lose out on his $5 billion payment, but if the Towers still stood, there is a high likelihood that not long after the explosives would be discovered.
There is no way the perps could have taken that risk, and a missile is the only way to guarantee the hit.
Or consider the situation over at the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld sitting in what I believe is the west wing of the building where all the military brass sit. You know the plan: you got some crazed fanatic suicide pilot heading towards you in a hijacked aeroplane and he has promised to fly around the back and into the wedge where the accountants and auditors looking for the missing $2.3 trillion are busy at work.
What is stopping him changing his mind and crashing into the front of the building where you happen to be sitting? If he thinks about it, that is a far better plan. The truth is obvious, is not it?
There is no way on earth if you are party to this operation that you would allow a real plane to be aimed at the Pentagon, flown by a nutcase. It could only be a missile. That’s why there is no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon, no wreckage of a plane at Shanksville, no wreckage at the Twin Towers, no black box flight data recorders et cetera.
Maybe the planes took off, but they were clearly swapped at some point for missiles.
It’s sobering to consider how much contempt they must hold the masses in that they would not only contemplate such an audacious piece of trickery, but clearly knew they could get away with it. They were right too.
Why even bother with this nonsense when the “official story” is so ideal for exposing the neocon-Saudi alliance?
Why waste so much time?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=senator+bob+graham+saudi&page=&utm_source=opensearch
Just because you like writing fiction? That’s your day job; do something more serious in your spare time. Stop feeding these fools’ egos; we could have half a dozen new activists. Effective ones instead of damp squibs.
– “this operation would have been impossible to pull off with real planes”
Fiction writers for the Telegraph are of course experts on such matters.
– “But all the pilots I have seen interviewed”
ie. the ones on Pilots for 9/11 Truth
– “agree that hitting a skyscraper would actually be very difficult”
Like landing in the middle of a runway, perhaps?
– “Not impossible, but difficult”
What if they were Saudi military pilots, in the US under the 1945 Quincey agreement for their military training?
– “U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s”
http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495
– “What if the hijackers missed? This would be very serious, not just because poor Larry Silverstein would lose out on his $5 billion payment”
What did rebuilding cost? The insurance included a clause that required rebuilding in the event of a payout. And the site has been rebuilt.
– “but if the Towers still stood, there is a high likelihood that not long after the explosives would be discovered”
The assumed explosives, for which there is no evidence, and no need so far as the collapses of the Twin Towers are concerned. And which are denied by the global engineering and physics communities. Indeed, the collapses of the Twin Towers are entirely consistent with progressive collapse, thus providing evidence against explosives, which would have messed up that consistency.
This is a circular argument. The “explosives” make possible “no planes”, and “no planes” make explosives necessary.
– “Donald Rumsfeld [is not in the part of the Pentagon] where the accountants and auditors looking for the missing $2.3 trillion”
That’s the 2.3 trillion Rumsfeld had mentioned just days before, right? Oh what a give away! But actually he never said that it was missing, but merely that it “could not be tracked”. Thanks to Node for pointing this out.
– “That’s why there is no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon, no wreckage of a plane at Shanksville, no wreckage at the Twin Towers”
All untrue, just lying Truther mythology. Peter Beswick was trying to myth away aircraft debris at the WTC site just on the previous page.
– “It’s sobering to consider how much contempt they must hold the masses in that they would not only contemplate such an audacious piece of trickery, but clearly knew they could get away with it. They were right too”
Yet most of the contempt I see comes from Truthers who expect readers to swallow their mythology and don’t like to see it challenged. They know they can get away with it because none of their gang will ever criticise the bunk posted by a fellow member. And lower-order gang members will always try to kick kick kick challengers like me to get us off the thread.
And “King”, I went through the September Clues stuff with Exexpat. The changes in hue are the typical colour artefacts you get with the US television system. I used to repair TVs and VCRs, I know the systems quite well. The US colour transmission system is known as NTSC. It’s nickname among video engineers is “Never Twice the Same Colour”, NTSC, gedit? If you don’t believe me, look it up. The old UK system, PAL, is nicknamed “Pale And Lurid” for the way successive lines are alternated to average out colour variations, to overcome the deficiencies in NTSC. And the French system is SECAM, or System Exactly Contrary to the American Method.
As for “nose in, nose out”, it all comes down to a few shady pixels, and the “enhancement” applied by the people at September Clues.
More bunk, I’m afraid.
Go watch some of these:
https://www.youtube.com/user/WTCFOIAVideos/videos
Much raw footage from TV news reporters; full reels, some of them, not edited. And loads of amateur video. The reality is chilling.
@ Clark November 3, 2017 at 23:10
‘ie. the ones on Pilots for 9/11 Truth’
Do you think they don’t know what they are talking about? Are they not experienced airline and civil airliner pilots, with thousands of hours flying time, many both military and civilian pilots?
‘Like landing in the middle of a runway, perhaps?’
No one lands an airliner on a runway at 450-550 MPH, and of course airports have all sorts of navigational aids.
‘..The assumed explosives, for which there is no evidence..’
Ample evidence exists of iron spherules with other elements in them in all the dust samples tested, consistent with nanothermate/ite, and also unreacted thermitic material.
Assuming that the incredible amount of dust all over Manhattan was clleaned up by roadsweepers and buried somewhere (probably Fresh Kills dump), then it would be perfectly possible for major samples to be recovered and tested, except the ‘Authorities’ would not allow such a thing to occur.
‘That’s the 2.3 trillion Rumsfeld had mentioned just days before, right? Oh what a give away! But actually he never said that it was missing, but merely that it “could not be tracked……”.
You’re missing the point entirely; the point is, why would the ‘hijacker’ not want to cause the most damage, and hit the top people in the Pentagon? If he didn’t know the Pentagon layout, why not just hit the easiest part, the one he would have first come upon, instead of the almost impossible maneuver the ‘plane’ is said to have made?
The black box flight data, given to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, showed the ‘plane’ it was from had been to high and would have overflown the Pentagon, as well as the fact that a Boeing airliner can’t fly at the speed claimed so near the ground.
If a hijacker did want to crash an airliner into the Pentagon, why on earth would he not dive into the roof, instead of supposedly flying impossibly low, and clipping lightpoles?
‘– “That’s why there is no wreckage of the plane at the Pentagon, no wreckage of a plane at Shanksville, no wreckage at the Twin Towers”
Any ‘wreckage’ found could easily have been planted. None was ever found with crucial numbers that linked anything to the alleged hijacked planes,
‘All untrue, just lying Truther mythology.’
Be careful; some of us might consider hiring Jake Wallis Simons’ lawyer!
‘Yet most of the contempt I see comes from Truthers who expect readers to swallow their mythology and don’t like to see it challenged. They know they can get away with it because none of their gang will ever criticise the bunk posted by a fellow member. And lower-order gang members will always try to kick kick kick challengers like me to get us off the thread.’
You’re entitled to your opinion of what happened, just as we are. No one, so far as I am aware of, has called you a liar or an agent on this blog, or intimated such.
I cannot find links, but I’m pretty shore there was reported to have been an I**aeli aircraft security expert on board one of the ‘alleged’ hijacked planes. That would be a strong indication that the planes were not used to crash into buildings, as other evidence which you apparently find acceptable means such a high up I**aeli person would surely have been tipped off, like the Odigo pair (and I’m sure many others).
At the moment I’m reading “Young Men in Spats” by P G Wodehouse.
“A bean was in a nursing-home with a broken leg as the result of trying to drive his sports-model Poppenheim through the Marble Arch instead of round it. . .”
Thus starts chapter 4 The Amazing Hat Mystery. I won’t spoil the plot but if the hat does not fit exchange it for one that does. Then wear it. Between Marble Arch and Royal Ascot not a piece of wreckage from the Poppenheim was seen let alone the vehicle itself. Not one of the toppered passengers in the tooter was ever seen again. An undamaged membership card to Drones Club was found at the scene but the owner was subsequently spotted alive at Kelly’s Club in Monaco where he had been on the day of the alleged hijacking. Marble Arch disappeared into its own footprint and all the marble was shipped abroad. A new marble arch stands in its place.
When you enter the fourth dimension, you can be guilty one day and innocent the next. The moral is: if the hat fits, wear it. Like the poppy, wear it with pride.
I cannot understand how somebody with a talent for fiction like King of Welsh Noir can honestly think he can get away with writing fact. Get a day job KoWN.
Very funny John.
But how come you “can’t find the time” to answer the substantive arguments? Here are some recent ones you’ve left unanswered, yet it’s only ever me who is accused of running away:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-124/#comment-705768
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-124/#comment-705733
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-124/#comment-705744
Drones Club, eh? I told you the planes weren’t real.
@KWN excellent post!
Maxter, it’s bunk; I just debunked it.
I have a suggestion. Go find the New York fire-fighters’ forums and social media, and see what they think of the “Truth” movement. There will be a few Truthers, of course, but try to get the general flavour. I think you’ll find this stuff is highly unpopular.
Thanks you Sir!
” all the pilots I have seen interviewed say to fly a 757 into a skyscraper is very, very difficult. ”
Width of the WTC = 208ft
Width of runway at Dulles = 150ft
So landing it would be even more difficult!
Any aircraft that handled that badly would be a liability.
Kempe: ‘Any aircraft that handled that badly would be a liability.’
Here’s an article, well foot-noted, quoting upwards of 20 aviation experts who say it would have required great skill to fly a 757 into the Twin Towers – ‘like threading the eye of a needle’.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11
I think most honest commenters will agree the overall effect of reading their words supports my contention that it would have been very difficult to perform this manoeuvre, especially for amateur pilots.
Note, the point is not that they couldn’t have done it, only that it would have required a lot of luck and thus the chance of failure was very high. And given the stakes – and the explosives in the Towers – failure was not an option.
WTC 7 is ‘about to blow up’
Anyway as you are here, Kempe, perhaps you would finally have the courtesy to answer a question I have put to you about four times now.
Namely your interpretation of this footage of firemen and cops outside WTC7 just before it collapses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A
The footage shows firemen and cops moving people back from WTC 7 saying the building is ‘about to blow up’. Whereupon there is an explosion and the building collapses, at freefall speed for some of the time, and exhibiting the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
To me that CNN footage means exactly what it says on the tin, Building 7 was blown up. Presumably you don’t think that, so can you tell me what you think the firemen mean when they say the building is about to blow up?
MODS, please don’t delete King of Welsh Noir’s comment. The ongoing kickings should not be hidden.
– “Do you actually think about the words you write, or do you just draw them out of a hat?”
Kick.
– “I think most honest commenters will agree”
In other words, Kempe is dishonest. Kick.
– “and the explosives in the Towers”
Ah yes. Those explosives – which there is evidence AGAINST.
– “WTC 7 is ‘about to blow up’”
And how does that imply explosives in the Twin Towers? I’ve asked you this before, but you go aloof and just watch the others kicking me.
– “Whereupon there is an explosion and the building collapses, at freefall speed for some of the time, and exhibiting the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.”
Acceleration at g is NOT typically observed in controlled demolitions, and control could not be guaranteed in the demolition of a damaged and burning building. But you consistently refuse to engage with these points, along with the rest of the gang. You are a fiction writer; you should ask someone about the physics. I’m pretty good at it; good school grades, and I started a physics degree; you could ask me. Or you could ask Kempe; his physics seems OK too.
But, King of Welsh Noir, seeing as you won’t treat Kempe with respect, maybe you should let me talk to him, unless your questions are really for show, for the audience.
So exactly what do you suspect Kempe of? The same as the others you have accused? Mossad, Larry Silverstein, Stanley Kubrick? I wonder what they all have in common.
Well well; the article linked adds support to my suspicion; maybe the names of the hijackers were massaged, and military trained pilots flew the aircraft into the buildings. It is indeed a well-referenced article, and the opinions quoted are indeed aviation experts. Kempe, I recommend you bother to read this article; it is NOT the usual Truther nonsense.
– “The men flying the planes must have been “highly skilled pilots” and “extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators,” who were “probably military trained,” these experts said”
The experts quoted by “King” don’t support a “no planes” hypothesis at all. Quite the opposite.
And what sort of pilots would be prepared to sacrifice their own lives for such a mission?
[Mod: Done. Similar courtesies would be welcomed.]
Mods & Kempe
I apologise for the ad hominem directed at Kempe, feel free to delete the line, but perhaps keep the rest of the post?
Good on you KoWN.
Mods, seconded.
Kempe, you are forgetting that landing speeds are a fraction of cruising speeds.
And was not at least one of the planes on a turning trajectory when it impacted?
Nikko, the article is not really about hitting the Twin Towers. It is more about navigation, understanding the systems of large, complex airliners and the coordination between the various flights without the help of flight control authorities.
Saudi fighter pilots. It looks like the US has been covering up that they trained these “terrorists” themselves, probably in the US.
Clark, I was responding to Kempe’s comment at 03.09 where he implied that landing a 757 at Dulles is more difficult than hitting the Towers.
Fair enough, but the article linked by KoWN covers that. It is not a no-planes article at all.
Kick, kick, kick.
MODS, leave it. Show up these conspiracy theorists for what they really are. Make them face what they’ve written in the sobriety of morning.
If people would only face the reality of 9/11, we’d have exposed the neocon-Saudi alliance by now. The Libya deception couldn’t have happened, nor the proxy war on Syria:
Revealing the 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo the Entire US-Saudi Alliance — Sen. Bob Graham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWlZnnEbtuc
The truth about 9/11 has been fully exposed, just as the lie about WMDs was fully exposed, but pro-war MPs will pretend black is white, bearing in mind nearly all MPs voted to destroy Libya on the unfounded pretext of defending civilians. They vote for war because they want war, or daren’t oppose war, due to the influence of the Israel coalition, but to ease their consciences like to claim the moral high ground. They promote suffering on others and act the victim when people complain.
MPs are just people, same as us. They are as susceptible to propaganda and manipulation as anyone else.
You, Dave, have proven yourself very susceptible to false claims that the Twin Towers couldn’t have collapsed without explosives. And as Exexpat, I believe, that variations in TV colour is some grounds for suspicion, which it is not. You’ve just got used to the superior colour stability of the UK PAL system; colour variations were commonplace for viewers of the US NTSC system. It’s all to easy to succumb to false impressions.
I am sure that some MPs have been highly culpable. But for decades, the Blairite leadership of New Labour and these new non-conservative Tories have been selecting young candidates by how compliant they are, and “parachuting” them into constituencies. It’s no surprise that the follow the party whip without thinking; there were selected for that trait.
@ Clark November 4, 2017 at 10:16
And perhaps even more susceptible to bribes and blackmail, inflated egos and lust for power.
How long did the tyre spend in the building? How long was it exposed to the fireball? Time it! Don’t add to the stupid mythology!
Precisely
How long did the tyre spend in the building?
Please think about that and what it had to travel through in that time to end up where it did.
So what are you saying DID happen? Someone dropped it off out of a van and no one noticed? On the videos you can see the parts fly out the far side of the building!
And yes, I’m totally sick of the constant kicking. I’ve been taking it for months, and the ones doing it just say “oh it’s nothing to do with US, go talk to Samaritans”. And I see them do it to others, too. The rule is, add to the mythology, or fuck off, or suffer a linguistic kicking, and I’m not lying down and taking it any more. THAT is a sign of mental HEALTH, not mental illness.
How long did the tyre spend in the building?
Please think about that and what it had to travel through in that time to end up where it did.
All it testifies to is what I’ve been saying all along; the lack of substance to the Twin Towers. There’s nothing suspicious that some tires survived. They are designed to take heat; you see them smoke from friction on touchdown.
Come on, admit to what you were trying to suggest.
There was essentially no concrete in their path; if they just missed the core, just four sheets of quarter inch, fairly brittle steel in total, and only across a third of the cross sectional area at that. And they had half the fuselage and all it contained to forge a channel for them.
Where do you get the “several hundred tonnes of concrete”? The concrete was all in horizontal layers (floor assemblies) with nearly four metre gaps between them. None in the perimeter walls or the core; just plasterboard there. The landing gear parts simply passed between the horizontal concrete layers.
Floor plan
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
Landing gear embedded in panel containing columns 329, 330 & 331
Look at the structures the landing gear had to pass through
Look at the trajectory the landing gear had to take (through internal steel core columns) and the estimated exit speed
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
Right. So what’s your alternative?
PLEASE don’t say “just asking questions”. That’s been going on for a decade and a half, and consequently we have NO answers!
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict6.jpg
The landing gear had to pass through concrete stairwells and massive steel columns.
Is that possible?
Yep. In your Serendipity link, the little red squares are steel. The black lines are just plasterboard. Plenty of room for landing gear to pass between columns. And the landing gear has the entire front half of the fuselage and all it contained to cut a channel ahead of it.
What’s your alternative? There has to be one.
The stairways are relatively tiny! (NIST criticised this; inadequate escape routes). Good chance the landing gear could miss the stairs. Even the lift shafts were just clad in plasterboard; some people escaped a lift stuck between floors by cutting through the lift shaft cladding with a bit of blunt steel.
Three wheels got through, five got caught. Seems reasonable to me.
4 wheels got through, seems impossible to me.
So what’s your alternative?
The steel columns were at their thinnest in the high reaches of the buildings where the aircraft hit. Had there been a load of vertical concrete, it might seem odd that the wheels got through, but there were just relatively narrow, relatively sparsely spaced columns made of relatively thin and quite brittle steel (mechanical engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl criticised the use of steel harder than the standard A36 structural steel, because its extra hardness made it more brittle).
If you watch the collapse videos, note that the antenna on WTC1 started to drop before anything else. It looks to me as if the core had to be almost completely severed at the impact zone. You’ve said yourself how tough landing gear needs to be; it’s about the only part of the aircraft that contacts external solid matter rather than air.
And an alternative is needed, and it looks to me that such an alternative would morph into more mythology, like the landing gear was placed and the aircraft weren’t real, or something.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/crashfloors.html
Thin Columns? 7ft centres
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The landing gear getting through is one thing, getting through largely undamaged is another.
Nikko, it was pretty smashed up; I don’t think they’ll be refitting it to another aircraft!
And no, moderate damage is not unreasonable. The landing gear was retracted into the fuselage; I looked at the diagram and the two wing-mounted sets also swung inward into the fuselage when retracted. They were pretty well protected, at least until the fuselage had been completely shredded. The wing sets were also in line behind the nose set; which sets were found, and which suffered greater damage? Look for consistency as well as inconsistency. Investigate fairly.
I thought some of the tyres looked in a pretty good nick considering they smashed their way through a 14” by 14” steel box section.
Peter Beswick, 11:54: – “Thin Columns? 7ft centres”
ie: nearly seven foot between columns; plenty of room to pass through. How big was the landing gear? And it could ricochet off columns, or aircraft structure in front could clear a path through the building structure. Impossible? At the impact speed? I think not.
Nikko, 12:21: If they did. They could simply have missed the columns, or glanced off a couple.
Where are you trying to get with such reasoning? What’s the alternative?
I am simply asking questions. Presumably it was the much smaller metal parts of the landing gear that punched its way through so how come the tyre was not stripped off. And it happened twice, on the way in and on the way out
Well it appears that it did.
Do you have a more likely alternative; one that builds into as consistent a picture as passenger airliners striking the building?
Nikko, that is how scientific investigation works, right?
– “A black hole in Cyg X-1 is the most conservative hypothesis”
Edwin Salpeter.
Clark ” There was essentially no concrete in their path; if they just missed the core, just four sheets of quarter inch, fairly brittle steel in total
The steel at the bottom of the perimeter columns was 4″ thick.
The steel at the top was “as little as 1/4 inch” which I take to mean “no less than 1/4 inch.”
North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, plane hit between floors 93 and 99.
South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, plane hit between floors 77 and 85.
110 stories in each Tower.
Based on the above, and assuming the thickness of steel was reduced linearly from bottom to top, reasonable estimates of minimum steel thickness of columns which planes debris would have to penetrate are as follows:
WTC1 : 0.73″
WTC2 : 1.24″
So even if debris missed the core columns*, it would still have to penetrate nearly 3 inches of steel (WTC1) or 5 inches (WTC2).
*[By the same reasoning, the core columns (5″ thick at the base) would have been 0.86″ thick (WTC1) and 1.50″ thick (WTC2) where the planes hit]
The details of thickness of perimeter steel are difficult to find, but the core columns were apparently of three different gauges rather than tapered. The aircraft strikes were both in the highest of the three sections. At 0:42:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3TmHYaXvEo
But what’s your point? Do you have an origin for the landing gear in the street which fits a more consistent picture than aircraft striking the buildings?
A very quick calc, please check it Clark.
A part of the engine or landing gear was found in Murray street, i.e. 430m from WTC2. As the aircraft impacted at floor 80, the velocity of the component emerging from the building must have been 200km/hr to make it to Murray St. (air resistance assumed to be zero).
Assuming speed of aircraft impacting WTC 2 is 800 km/hr, the deceleration from the tower structure amounted to 385m/s2 and assuming that the component mass was 1000kg, the decelerating force was ~ 0.4 MN.
The perimeter wall was 14” by 14” box section, 6.5mm thick. The cross sectional area is 0.0095m2 for 1 column but the component had to punch through two columns, so 0.019m2 in total.
Taking the shear strength of steel as 430MPa/m2, the force required to punch through two sets of box sections is 8MN.
So, 0.4 MN of force causing 8MN worth of damage. How do you interpret it?
There is one very clear video on YouTube of the aircraft strike on WTC2 from above, and roughly behind the impacted direction. The aircraft parts can be seen clearly to break out through the perimeter wall, arcing down into the streets below. You can presumably find it somewhere among these:
https://www.youtube.com/user/WTCFOIAVideos/videos
Nikko, I must go shopping before the market closes. I could check the motion calculations later. I am not familiar with shear strength calculations.
But two cautions. If you have used the shear strength of standard A36 steel, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl criticised the Twin Towers for using harder, more brittle steel. This link might provide a starting point but I don’t have time to check:
http://911-engineers.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html
Also, don’t assume the landing gear made all the holes itself; it presumably had some of the mass and kinetic energy of its airliner to help it along. I’d say to try to find limiting cases, upper and lower, but the additional aircraft material may make that impossible.
But what’s your point?
You have claimed several times that the steel sheet in the perimeter columns where the planes struck was 1/4 inch thick. This claim forms part of your reasoning for how aluminium planes were able to slice through the columns.
My point is: By the best available evidence, the steel sheet was three (WTC1) or five (WTC2) times thicker than you claim. Do you agree?
Oh and see if you can find the incident on video at the NIST FOIA library. Check the path of the components to see where they actually first struck ground.
And Nikko, consider that the panel of column sections may have ripped out by tearing its bolts out or stripping them; the ones in the box-column ends and the ones connecting the spandrels. Remember that things generally break the easiest way they can; when inspecting a broken chain, the weakest link is the one we have to account for.
Node, I don’t know; I only have the 1/4 inch figure for that height in the building. But see my notes to Nikko above.
Try to see how it could happen rather than forever looking for how it couldn’t. Things break; it’s a bitch, and every engineer knows that. The thing that always needs to be checked for is how things might break more easily than expected, not the other way around; that’s the marketing department’s job.
I set off and came back to post this. I hope I make it to the market on time. Bye.
Node, I don’t know; I only have the 1/4 inch figure for that height in the building.
No, you do NOT have a 1/4 inch figure for that height in the building. The 1/4 inch thickness is for the top of the building. The planes crashed 84% (WTC1) and 71% (WTC2) from the top of the building. By extrapolation from known data, the thickness where the planes crashed was nearly 3/4 inch (WTC1) and 5/4 inch (WTC2).
You were underestimating the strength of WTC2’s columns by a factor of 5. Does this cause you to reconsider the plausibility of aluminium planes penetrating them?
Me : The planes crashed 84% (WTC1) and 71% (WTC2) from the top of the building.
I should have said “The planes crashed crashed 84% (WTC1) and 71% (WTC2) up the height of the building.”
And Nikko, consider that the panel of column sections may have ripped out by tearing its bolts out or stripping them
Looking at the picture linked to by Peter Beswick of the landing gear embedded in the whole perimeter section, then 24 bolts had to fail in shear (those connecting the box sections end to end) and 60 bolts in tension (those on the spandrel plates).
If each bolt is 1” dia, , then the total cross sectional area is 0.04 m2, so more than double that of the cross sectional area of the box sections. And the bolts would be much stronger than the box sections.
So we still have the situation where the force of the landing gear or engine is just a small fraction of the force needed to shear the perimeter walls or the bolts.
P.S. Force = stress * area
Moderator. 11:00 am Saturday 4th November 2017.
This thread is becoming impossible to assess and maintain effectively due to constant bickering, sarcasm, ad hominems and complaints and counter-complaints about and from the various posters.
As of now:
Please address the arguments of others in a courteous manner, and confine yourselves to doing only that. If you are unable to do that, please leave the thread. From now on, any other manner of posting will be deleted as soon as it is picked up, without regard to the remainder of the posting, or how many replies it has received.
if this fails to solve the problems then a formal request will be made to Craig Murray to either close the thread or leave it unmoderated.
Many thanks for your co-operation.
Are you short, Shrift?
We need a laugh on this thread which grinds on.
How many billion pixels have been created and how many megawatts of electricity expended to arrive here at this point 16 years on from the event,
I presume someone pressed the self-destruct button on the conversation about a plane’s undercarriage penetrating right through the Tower and out the other side – a great pity because when I last looked it was courteous and relevant and free of bickering, sarcasm, and ad hominems. It also contained some good links and some original and significant calculations. I hope Nikko will post his figures again about the wheel’s kinetic energy versus the resistance of the building.
I’m now going to summarise my own calculation about the probable thickness of the steel sheet where the planes crashed. Hopefully it will survive this time.
Addressing the claim that the steel of the Twin Towers columns was only 1/4 inch thick where the planes struck.
There were 110 stories in each Tower.
WTC1: plane hit between floors 93 and 99 = 96/110 of height of building
WTC2: plane hit between floors 77 and 85 = 81/110 of height of building
The steel at the bottom of the perimeter columns was 4 inch thick.
The steel at the bottom of the core columns was 5 inch thick.
The steel of all columns tapered to 1/4 inch thick at the top.
Making the reasonable assumption that the thickness of steel tapered evenly from bottom to top, plate thickness of perimeter columns where plane collided with WTC1 = (14 ÷ 110 x 3.75) + 0.25 = 0.73 inch. By the same reasoning:
plate thickness of perimeter columns where plane collided with WTC1 = 0.73 inch
plate thickness of perimeter columns where plane collided with WTC2 = 1.24 inch
plate thickness of core columns where plane collided with WTC1 = 0.86 inch
plate thickness of core columns where plane collided with WTC2 = 1.50 inch
What is going on – that was a good thread. I was not aware of the issues around the landing gear until this morning. Luckily, no big deal to redo the calc.
Take the landing gear from WTC 1 falling on the corner of Rector St and West St, i.e. 400 m distance. Assuming zero air resistance, the landing gear has to emerge at 51 m/s or 180km/hr to make it to the landing spot. If the initial velocity of the plane hitting the tower was 850 km/hr, then through the tower it decelerated at a rate of 440m/s2. If we assuming the mass of the landing gear was 2 tonne, then the decelerating force was 890 kN.
The landing gear had to punch its way at least through the perimeter wall on the way in and on the way out. Let’s also assume that at each end there was only one box section column to go through. The box section dimensions were 14” by 14” with the wall 0.25”. That is a cross-sectional area of 0.01m2, but because the failure mode is shear there were 4 “cuts” to be made so a total area of 0.037m2.
Taking shear stress of standard steel at 430 MPa, the necessary force to make these “cuts” is 16,000kN, some 16 times greater than the available force.
From memory, the numbers are a little different from this morning but the story has not changed. Tried to be a little more careful this time. Can’t explain it, particularly as regards the front landing gear as that would have had no help from the rest of the plane to make it through the building.
Re: Nikko at 22.37
Apologies for misleading you – there is a mistake in the calculation and the conclusion is WRONG!
I have incorrectly assumed that the landing gear would decelerate uniformly throughout the whole 60m length of the building, which is clearly not the case, as the deceleration would be only across the two perimeter walls of 14” each. Either way the total decelerating effort is the same but the true decelerating force is much higher than I stated because it acts over a shorter time.
The correct decelerating force of a 2 tonne landing gear (from the wing) over 28” of the perimeter wall is 74,000kN and not 890kN. That is 4.5 times the force needed to shear through two box section columns, so it could be done. Of course the assumption is that the landing gear is perfectly lined up so that only one box section is in the way in each wall and the landing gear hits no other obstacle. The situation would be different if the landing gear was impacting sideways and breaking through several column sections at a time or if it was the front landing gear which has a mass of only 1 tonne, or if the initial impact speed was less but all that brings us into the realm of speculation.
And how the tyres made it through without much damage remains a bit of a mystery as does what exactly happened to the wheel found on the street embedded in the whole perimeter wall section. I’ll try to look at that later.
Nikko, you have done very well to remain self-sceptical in the prevailing atmosphere on this thread.
Apparently, the perimeter columns were not made of standard A36 structural steel:
– “…the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as “yield strength”) in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.
As a result of such design elements both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings.
The structural innovations meant the developers saved money because they could use less steel”
Considering the landing gear embedded in the whole perimeter section which fell on West and Ceder, 200m from WTC1.
A perimeter panel is attached to other panels by 24 bolts in the box section members and 60 bolts in the spandrel plate. Assuming that the bolts were 1” dia and that the average point of failure strength is 700MPa (the spandrel bolts fail in tension while the column bolts fail in shear) and force of 29,000kN is needed to make the break
For the debris to land 200m away from a height off 95th floor needs an emerging velocity of 84km/hr. According to NIST, the max possible plane impact speed for WTC1 was 472miles/hr (755 km/hr). In theory, 2 tonne mass of landing gear would exert just about the right amount of force, assuming the ejecting panel was on the exit side and half the available energy was used to enter the building. All losses are excluded such as air resistance, the force to break the landing gear from the aircraft structure, friction, etc.. Most importantly the landing gear must find a clear way through the building without impacting any obstacle.
In reality, a force 50% to 100% greater than the theoretical minimum would be expected to achieve the trick.
When starting this exercise I was hoping that it would show categorically that ejection of the wheels could not have happened. Unfortunately, the results are quite close; the best conclusion is that it all seems quite doubtful.
– “When starting this exercise I was hoping that it would show categorically that ejection of the wheels could not have happened”
Why?
Because proving that it could not have happened is within my means whereas proving what happened is not. Dr Hulsey is trying to prove what happened at WTC 7 and the effort runs into man-years.
Of course, failing to prove that something could not have happened is not the same as saying that it did
Node, if you’re quick and you really want them, you can find most of those comments on the Feed:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/feed/
I’m not particularly bothered because, in my opinion, it was a digression into pointless detail. We can never find out if all the bolts were fitted or all had nuts on, all the welds sound, how much other aircraft material accompanied the landing gear how far through the building, whether there were any manufacturing defects such as fractures in the steel plate, whether the fireball helped to propel it, etc. etc. etc. It was Spherical Cow; an unrealistic attempt to apply precise physics calculations to a complex and messy reality. The field is not the laboratory. What matters is whether there is any alternative explanation that isn’t so hideously baroque as to fail Occam’s razor.
Personally I’m satisfied that aircraft hit the buildings, and I strongly suspect that what is being covered up is who precisely was flying them, and how they came to be in the United States. The Quincy Agreement; it doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page, and that’s suspicious.
@ Node November 4, 2017 at 20:45
It’s not just the plate thickness, it’s the plate width; the wings and all would have had to slice through the whole width of the plates, times two, for each exterior column that was hit.
But more importantly, what about the aircraft’s NOSE?
‘9/11 Fraud: Nose In / Nose Out’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo
It’s not just the plate thickness, it’s the plate width; the wings and all would have had to slice through the whole width of the plates, times two, for each exterior column that was hit.
Of course.
I am addressing the often repeated but false claim that the steel of the Twin Towers columns was only 1/4 inch thick where the planes struck.
The core had just three sections of different gauges; I assumed the perimeter would be similar but the following doesn’t say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3TmHYaXvEo
“Making the reasonable assumption that the thickness of steel tapered evenly from bottom to top. . .”
Sorry to say Node it did not taper evenly. I know this but I cannot take the time looking for it.
Your calculations based on 1/4 inch are also wrong. The steel the plane had to go through was 1/4 inch thick only on one face but (and this is a crucial point that is being ignored) 13 – 14 inch deep in box columns on two of the faces. These box pillars were spaced some 3 ft apart and welded together in strips of three across spandrels which I estimate themselves are five feet deep, ten feet wide and 1/4 inch thick. Any plane hitting them is hitting something very rigid. For a start the spandrel makes the steel face at point of impact at least 1/2 inch by 5 inch by ten inch, and any plane hitting the buildings would have had to have gome through multiple numbers of these.
You should not be misled by Clark, or anyone else, who tries to make you think that wafer-thin aluminium planes (admittedly much more robust at engines and landing gear junctures) could go through this amount of steel and take it out like a perfect Bluto shape in a Popeye episode. It cannot happen. It cannot happen even if the video evidence appears to show it did. Look for another answer.
John, I suppose I didn’t make myself clear – I think both you and Paul are misunderstanding the point I am making. I know the columns were box section and I know that the width of the columns didn’t taper. I am referring to the thickness of the metal sheet that the columns were made out of.
In the perimeter columns, it varied between 4 inches at the bottom, and 0.25 inches at the top.
Halfway up, it would have been half of 4.25 = 2.125
And at the 81st floor where the plane supposedly struck WTC2, the thickness would have been 1.24 inches.
I don’t know about the thickness of the spandrels, I would guess that they were the same thickness all the way up because their purpose was to brace horizontally, not to support weight. If you say it was 1/4 inch, that’s fine by me. But I reckon that the perimeter columns at that height were 5 times stronger than you are describing because the sheet metal they were made from was 5 times thicker than 1/4 inch.
Node, I know what you’re saying, but it is the tapering I am questioning. I am sure we are all agreed about dimensions concerning the thickest and thinnest of the box columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
I have read somewhere that they did not taper up progressively following some kind of uniform graph as when you set say one degree of taper when machining an item. Instead there would be sections (for arguments sake 20 stories) where the thickness was constant. One of the problems is I have no link at the moment. Such links are hard to find.
Of course what you are saying is right about it being nonsense that the ‘planes’ only had to penetrate 1/4 inch of steel. It was an argument put forward to try and make very rigid structures appear vulnerable. The perimeter argument and aluminium carving a slice out of structural steel is not any engineering feet I have ever come across. But it is nothing to believing that the cores, which were even more structurally sound could have been brought down by fire from above. That would have been a feat the demolition companies would like to know about.
In a way the argument is academic. I have not doubt that Hulsey and his team will come to the right conclusions, but always remember, that if it does not agree with experiment it is wrong. The structure of beer cans is much less sturdy than the twin towers. When I did a rough calculation recently to scale beer cans to twin tower dimensions it surprised me to learn that it would take less than two and a half beer cans to reach above twin towers proportions. And they have no central core no floors.
So anybody who still believes the nonsense that the top of the twin towers could cause a crush-down effect should stamp on a beer can. Yes, it can be crushed down. But the amount of kinetic energy needed is huge. It could not be done by dropping an empty, or even a full beer can (believe me don’t waste the beer) so why anybody thinks it could happen to the twin towers is beyond me. Thankfully I never bought into that shit. But then, as keep getting reminded, I am an engineer. 🙂
‘engineering feat’
Thanks Mr Algorithm.
Hmmmmmm …. I must be missing something. I’m saying the steel was five times thicker than you are describing. You don’t seem to agree but your link supports what I’m saying. Referring to the perimeter columns, it says ….
…. and the accompanying illustration shows a plate thickness of 0.25″ near the top and 2.5″ near the mid-section. This fits nicely with my calculation that the thickness was 1.25″ on the 81st of 110 floors.
I’m sure you are right that the thickness was reduced in steps – my calculation was a simplification. If the word “tapering” is the problem, substitute “gradually reducing.” My point is that however difficult it is to imagine an aluminium wing slicing through columns made of quarter-inch steel, it’s 5 times more difficult if the steel is 5 times thicker.
John Goss, I see you’re still attacking Bazant’s theory:
– “So anybody who still believes the nonsense that the top of the twin towers could cause a crush-down effect should stamp on a beer can”
But Bazant’s theory is a straw man argument; the great majority of the columns were not crushed, and the videos clearly show that the leading collapse bypassed the steel frame by progressing through the concrete floor assemblies; things that break generally do so by the easiest process available, not the hardest.
You might do better to contemplate why a straw man argument has been so vigorously promoted from such a high position within US academia. Bazant might not care; his professional life essentially has passed.
I have a nasty suspicion that some of Bazant’s work has to do with the balance of contributions from various companies and authorities towards the payouts in the out-of-court settlements to the victims and the victims’ families. It’s the US; it’s almost certain to come down to money.
“John Goss, I see you’re still attacking Bazant’s theory:”
The reason I mentioned crush down (Bazant if you like) was because that’s what you do when you crush a beer can with your foot. Progressive collapse is just as silly if not sillier in terms of beer cans. Unless someone has a theory as to how it could happen.
I have posted repeatedly my description of the collapse sequence.
In both cases collapse initiated at the damaged and burning zone. The top section began to descend. As it did so, it will have inevitably broken up concrete floor assemblies and/or have decoupled them from the vertical perimeter and core members. This will have produced an increasing quantity of heavy, falling debris, outside the core but within the perimeter.
Most of the falling debris impacted the highest, still-supported floor assembly in the “stumps” beneath. At some point (probably almost immediately), that top-most floor assembly failed too, dropping even more material on the one beneath. This initiated an internal collapse which accelerated downward within the perimeter but outside the core. It is this internal collapse that produced the descending front of ejections of air between the perimeter columns which progressed down the buildings. When that front hit bottom, maximum crushing and pulverisation occurred, resulting in the largest, ground level ejections of dust.
But before the internal collapse had hit bottom, another wave of destruction was already progressing downward. As the internal collapse had passed, the perimeter had been deprived of lateral stability, until moments before provided by the floor assemblies. No longer held upright, the perimeter started to peel outward, toppling away from centre, breaking into sections ranging from large to enormous under its own weight by breaking the bolts in the box column ends. By toppling outwards, the perimeter walls ended up laid out like a great cross shape centred around the building’s footprint.
As the dust cleared the remnant of the slender core was revealed, which stood for a few seconds before falling mostly vertically, probably undercut at its base by the crush of concrete floor assemblies.
Please don’t just pick holes and dismiss; I have posed this description so many times. If something is unclear or seems contradictory, please ask for clarification.
“If something is unclear or seems contradictory, please ask for clarification.”
Where does Newton’s third law fit into your theory? You see, when I stamp on a beer can I can see that another beer posited above would not bring down that beer can if dropped upon it. The falling can, even if full, would not cause that collapse. Are we agreed?
“This will have produced an increasing quantity of heavy, falling debris, outside the core but within the perimeter.”
So, a bit like building debris being dropped in a skip? Agreed?
“As the internal collapse had passed, the perimeter had been deprived of lateral stability, until moments before provided by the floor assemblies.”
The perimeter did not need lateral stability (if by that you mean the floor structures) any more than a beer can does. Or a skip. It was the other way round. The core and perimeter gave the floor structures stability. But the main point, as I have mentioned ad nauseum, is that you do not understand Newton in practice if you think the damaged part of the building would pass through the undamaged structure below at almost free-fall (which I think we can all agree does not exist outside a vaccuum) at the path of greatest resistance. It cannot happen. It just cannot happen.
I just wish you could grasp it and we can move on. There is plenty to move on to.
Newton’s third is what prevented the internal collapse from achieving acceleration at g.
Each floor assembly exerted a reaction (upward) upon the material that impacted it (downward). But the sustainable reaction force was insufficient to arrest the collapse.
Say you push against a partition wall. You exert a force on the wall, and it exerts an equal and opposite reaction back; you and the wall come into equilibrium – you are leaning against the wall. But if you push hard enough, or many of you push, the wall cannot provide enough reaction force. It breaks, and the reaction force drops to zero, and you suddenly accelerate through the space vacated.
Same with the floor assemblies. When the falling material impacted a floor assembly, it pushed back for the brief instant as it flexed before it broke. Then it too joined the hail of downward debris which accelerated at g until impacting the floor assembly beneath. The reaction forces before breakage kept the average acceleration somewhat less than g.
The vertical columns could provide enough reaction force; that’s why they didn’t crush or break. They were pushing up at the edges of the floor assemblies via their truss seats. But either the truss seats were not strong enough to transmit enough force to the floor assemblies, or the floor assemblies were not strong enough to transmit enough to the falling material.
A bit like dropping building debris into a skip, yes. Imagine you support the skip so its bottom is off the ground. Then suspend a paving slab four metre above the skip, and another four metre above that, and so on until you have eleven paving slabs at intervals above the skip, the highest one 44 metre above the skip, about six times as high as a house.
Then release all the paving slabs at the same moment.
You could stand things on each paving slab too before letting them go. A tower computer, a heavy 1990s monitor like an old fashioned telly, a toilet bowl and cistern, a winch big enough for a goods elevator, a transformer half the size of a car, a stack of car batteries, a couple of people, etc.
That lot might be a bit much for the skip, so compensate by laying a paving slab in the bottom of it first.
Come to think of it, I overestimated slightly, and the building’s structure did slow the fall a bit, so to compensate the stack of slabs and contents should be about 27 metre, maybe four times the height of a house. This is for WTC1 though. WTC2 was much worse.
Re: Clark at 13.46
As the dust cleared the remnant of the slender core was revealed, which stood for a few seconds before falling mostly vertically, probably undercut at its base by the crush of concrete floor assemblies.
That core column disappeared vertically down like a retracting telescopic aerial. May be it was built like that, or may be the ground just opened up and swallowed it. Nothing else makes sense in a gravity collapse.
Indeed it was built that way; a tall, slender lattice of vertical columns connected by horizontal cross members, the four corners each consisting of a relatively narrow square of four vertical columns diagonally braced to each other. What little stability it had derived from its foundation, its rectangular cross section, its horizontal bracing, and those diagonals at its corners. Pinch its base together with a massive crush of concrete floor material from all sides, and it loses support and stability almost simultaneously. I don’t need to tell you that its vertical fall would probably occur much quicker than it could topple; there’s no angular momentum to be accumulated in a vertical fall, and once it has lost its footing there’s little lateral force from the ground from which a torque could be derived.
@ Node November 5, 2017 at 02:37
I don’t believe I misunderstood you; I was just clarifying that the planes would have been slicing through (as it turns out) 13.5″ of width, X 2, X how ever many perimeter columns the ‘plane’ ‘penetrated’.
These diagrams indicate the perimeter columns were .25″ near the top, and 2.5″ near the middle, so the 81st floor thickness should lie somewhere between those two figures.
But it is pretty irrelevant if NO BOEINGS hit the Towers, as suggested by many things, including this picture:
‘The hole that wasn’t there’ (perhaps Fred had filled it in, with the guy in the bowler hat buried deep in the columns?):
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+was+the+thickness+of+WTC+at+81st+floor&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwinxfXGgKjXAhVB1BoKHVp-DcQQsAQINA&biw=1600&bih=769#imgrc=yDRhOw9e6P9PrM:
Saying that they were built like a telescopic aerial was my attempt at sarcasm.
Clearly, the columns were not built like a telescopic aerial where gradually smaller sections are designed to slide into each other, but as one “continuous” piece with sections bolted and welded together with all manner of reinforcement.
The column disappeared vertically downward which is incompatible with a gravity only collapse
Come on Nikko, think. You’re good at these calculations; much better than me. My ability is more intuitive, understanding why this equation or that fits a given physical system. Once I’ve done that, I can barely be bothered with the calculations, I just find them boring; as soon as I’d learned to program I barely did them again.
OK, so imagine a hole did open up and swallow the core remnant under gravity. How long until the top disappeared through ground level? And now run it the other way; imagine that the whole remnant managed to remain rigid; how long would it take to topple? Post those two figures for me please, then we can think about what would actually happen.
Assuming the column was 75m tall, it would take 4 seconds to disappear into a hole beneath it in the absence of resistance.
Toppling would take longer but no point in calculating that as it did not topple.
Your point being??
OK, so the concrete crush pinching the base together deprives the “spire” of stability, but the internal torque distribution is greatest nearest the ground. The scale makes it hard to imagine; we think of rigid steel rods, but at that scale a better analogy is a bicycle chain that has rusted a bit while laid out straight (remembering that the core had been severely stressed when the floor assemblies stripped out). We stand our rusty chain up vertically, carefully so as not to bend it, and suspending it by the top link we gently lower it until the lowest link is just resting on the ground. Then we let go, hoping it will topple.
But it won’t. The lowest link bears the most weight and the most torque, so it flops, say, left, and the chain falls a bit so it is now an L shape. The next link up is now under torque the other way, so it flops right, then the next one left, and so on.
So the whole thing eventually lands in a somewhat randomly folded heap about its original footprint, and the overall impression from a distance (especially if you can’t see what’s happening at the base) is that it fell vertically.
Here; read this:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-125/#comment-706394
Nikko, people think of the buildings all wrong. They see pictures and read figures for the “massive” steel members, but at the size and weight of the whole building the structural members are fine and delicate. Try scaling it down by 100 to 1 to see what I mean. It becomes a fine cage over four metre high, but the perimeter box columns are just millimetres square, folded out of foil. The floor trusses become a tracery you can barely see supporting 1mm of ceramic.
The core was strong in compression, but never particularly rigid in relative terms; its lateral stability was achieved by connecting the top of it to the perimeter via the hat truss. The perimeter was held planar by being braced by so many floor assemblies.
The building derived its strength from being a clever shape, but the aircraft impact changed all that by cutting big gashes into both concentric tubes. Just like when you want to break a stick you just saw across it a little bit, and then when you stress it, it will break just there. Even easier with a tube. John goes on about his beer cans, but he doesn’t cut a gash out of them first.
That’s it you got it!!!! It collapsed like a rusty bicycle chain even though the structure of the column was nothing remotely like a bicycle chain. Why has nobody else thought of that?
Have you considered the possibility that the columns were made from the same material as the old indian rope trick?
Are you saying that you don’t understand the principle I described? You could do the calculation; how long a section does it take before the torque becomes too much for the (severely stressed) core remnant causing it to bend/break? Or are you simply going to assume that it should topple in one piece?
A steel lattice that tall is obviously flexible – you can see the “spire” sway. As it flexes, the more it deviates from upright, the more the torque increases. The most weight is at the base. The lowest third of the core started as the strongest part, but the internal collapse became heavier and faster – more energetic and destructive – as it progressed down.
I have watched nearly an hour of the film Calling OUT Bravo-7 that Node posted, and I now strongly suspect that I know why comments are disabled on its YouTube page. It is NOT made by fire-fighters. Far from it.
It is a mash-up, made from many other clips scavenged from YouTube, and comments are disabled to prevent complaints from the producers of the original videos from which its clips were, to all intents and purposes, stolen.
It really is the most hideous, insensitive, exploitative, dishonest piece of Truther propaganda I have ever seen. Truly disgusting to make a pastiche like that which makes fire professionals seem to say something they never would, and would say the opposite of.
It would take me so much work to find the original videos, in order to demonstrate just what an awful thing the maker of Bravo-7 has done. Probably quicker just to search the fire-fighters’ forums for their own comments.
Node, how did you find this – I have run out of expletives. How did you find it? I find it very sad that you did not recognise it for what it is – which is a fraud.
There is probably nothing that the makers of the original videos can do about Bravo-7. They probably posted to YouTube under licenses that permit the making of derivative works.
Honestly, this is sick.
I see it is highly recommended by Chandler on its account page. My opinion of Chandler has just gone through the seabed.
You complained about not being able to comment on the video. Well you can here and this link was available on the one Node provided.
https://vimeo.com/228041209
Re the landing gear, pub games, engineering and science.
I know something about explosives and ballistics, you don’t have to to understand those sciences understand what I am about to tell you.
All you need to know is;
1) When a moving moving pool ball hits a stationary one and its contact is not dead center of the moving ball the moving ball will veer off its original course.
2) Unbalanced projectiles tumble. Try throwing a dart without flights.
Now the landing gear that exited WTC1 and embedded itself in the panel (whether starboard or port gear) progressed along a straight path. It entered I[in between columns 123 and 127 and exited between columns 329 and 331 getting stuck between 329 and 330 or 330 and 331 (not sure which, cant be arsed finding out)
Regardless it passed through stairwells and columns (or ricocheted off columns) + other internal structures and services.
How do I know this? Microsoft paint!
I copied and pasted the floor plan of the impact floors of WTC1 into Paint
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_ch2.htm
I took measurements from;
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict133.jpg
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict59.jpg
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/767.pdf
And marked the entry and exit point tolerances on my new Paint diagram
I then used the straight line tool to link to entry and exit points along the tolerances.
Result: the undercarriage wheels impact with the stairwells and columns and other internal strucures.
Conclusion; what has been described as observed fact is in fact not possible.
The wheel embedded in the panel had to hit the panel precisely between the two external columns, for it to do so it must have hit the panel in a 90 deg vertical axis. The wheel would have been tumbling (through 360 deg revolutions) even if it had not hit any internal structures (which it would have done).
The story we have been told is not true and there is nothing that can make it true.
“The story we have been told is not true and there is nothing that can make it true.”
That;s true.
This very short video points to other unanswered questions about ‘planes’.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3bxt3c
Nikko, I have a funny feeling that leverage should appear in your calculation somewhere. I know that on the face of things energy that you save in reduced F should be offset by increased d, but intuitively that seems wrong; a projectile of given energy that will breach a large disc supported at its edges may not breach a smaller disc. I think this has something to do with the point at which some limit is exceeded. You must have overlooked something. Maybe you should apply a check on your work by trying similar calculations for some event you don’t suspect of having been staged.
Anyway, have fun.
‘BREAKING: Lebanese PM Hariri resigns after anti-Iranian meltdown’:
http://theduran.com/breaking-lebanese-pm-hariri-resigns-anti-iranian-meltdown/
‘…The timing of the surprise resignation is in many ways, more significant than the content of the resignation speech.
The speech came shortly after Hariri met with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman and only hours after the CIA published suspicious documents which perversely try to link Iran with al-Qaeda.
The fact of the matter is, as everyone except the CIA seems to know, that al-Qaeda is a declared enemy of Iran and Iran is a declared enemy of al-Qaeda, both in terms of geo-strategic interests as well as ideology.
In 1998, Iran almost went to war with Afghanistan to avenge the slaughter of Iranian diplomats by al-Qaeda who at the time were headquartered in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
More recently, Iran has fought with Iraqi and Syrian troops in their war against al-Qaeda and ISIS, an organisation which was founded by members of a group called al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Moreover, Iranians are targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists across the world in a ruthless fashion.
The absurdity of the CIA’s claim that Iran and al-Qaeda had attempted to work together is not only insulting to those with a sense of reality, but it obscures the fact that in Syria and Libya before that, the US has allied itself with al-Qaeda forces. The US in fact founded al-Qaeda in the 1980s when it was known as the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen. Members of the group even met with Ronald Reagan in the White House…..’
‘Regime-change rumblings? New CIA release suggests Iran conspired with Osama bin Laden’:
https://www.rt.com/news/408756-iran-qaeda-laden-regime-change/
US is ‘at it’ again: lies to heighten tensions, ramp up war fever.
The same lie was made about Saddam Hussein. It is interesting that no one in this ‘conspiracy thread’ has taken up to discuss the great ongoing conspiracy that the US has pushed about Russian meddling with the elections. It really is a hall of mirrors. Manafort is said to have been active in Ukraine, pre putsch, but that makes him colluding with Putin? Then a self admitted liar Pappadopoulos who claims to have contact with people near to Putin, turns up to have no such contacts but has entered a plea bargain with prosecutor to spill the beans. Was he an implant? Cohen and Natalie Nougayrèdeare have recent articles in the Guardian stating that it happened in all other recent elections and even the Brexit vote was tampered with by Russia. A recent Telegraph article also suggests that Russia is actively promoting Scottish independence .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/01/russian-cyber-operatives-setting-shop-scotland-promote-independence/
So now we have a proven establishment conspiracy being aggressively pushed with no evidence whatsoever. Maybe we should leave the 911 thread and tackle the current actual conspiracies. Maybe Clark has a point here. I am not saying that the official story of 911 is right, merely that it will get us nowhere to go on discussing it, after all we all appear to be on the same side. Clark admits that there are at least two other conspiracies within 911, shortcuts in building safety and that the suicide hijackers were trained Saudi military pilots. All of the technicalities of steel buildings hit by planes and collapsing and everything else becomes irrelevant. 911 was a conspiracy we all know that. But we will never know the exact details and no one will convince anyone of thier point of view.
SA, thank you so much for having heard what I have been trying to tell people.
“Clark admits that there are at least two other conspiracies within 911, shortcuts in building safety and that the suicide hijackers were trained Saudi military pilots.”
Clark does believe something like that. Others of us have no problem with the high building specifications of any of the buildings at the WTC. As to the ‘trained’ Saudi pilots they should not have been let loose in a Cessna according to Pilots for 9/11 truth.
Some of us also believe that the culprits were the US and the country we are not allowed to speak negatively about. It is important that the perpetrators are known and brought to task, not just for the sake of bereaved families, but for those killed in all the subsequent wars for which 9/11 was used as a pretext.
John, why do you trust “the official story” as to which of the hijackers piloted the aircraft? A simple matter to swap some names:
– “military police confirmed that the address [of the suspected hyjackers] housed foreign military flight trainees but denied access past front barricades. Officials at the base confirmed that the FBI is investigating the three students.
– It is not unusual for foreign nationals to train at U.S. military facilities. A former Navy pilot told NEWSWEEK that during his years on the base, “we always, always, always trained other countries’ pilots. When I was there two decades ago, it was Iranians. The shah was in power. Whoever the country du jour is, that’s whose pilots we train.”
– Candidates begin with “an officer’s equivalent of boot camp,” he said. “Then they would put them through flight training.” The U.S. has a long-standing agreement with Saudi Arabia-a key ally in the 1990-91 gulf war-to train pilots for its National Guard. Candidates are trained in air combat on several Army and Navy bases. Training is paid for by Saudi Arabia”
http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495
I don’t even believe that passenger planes flew into the buildings. At least I would need a lot more evidence than I have hitherto seen to be brought round to that belief.
Browse some of these videos. The second strike was videoed many times:
https://www.youtube.com/user/WTCFOIAVideos/videos
Yes, I remember reading during the Libyan ‘war’ that the so-called rebels had established a central bank in the midst of the fighting. It told me all I needed to know about that particular conflict.
Wow That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya
By Michael Snyder, on March 29th, 2011
The rebels in Libya are in the middle of a life or death civil war and Moammar Gadhafi is still in power and yet somehow the Libyan rebels have had enough time to establish a new Central Bank of Libya and form a new national oil company. Perhaps when this conflict is over those rebels can become time management consultants. They sure do get a lot done. What a skilled bunch of rebels – they can fight a war during the day and draw up a new central bank and a new national oil company at night without any outside help whatsoever…
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/wow-that-was-fast-libyan-rebels-have-already-established-a-new-central-bank-of-libya
It is obvious to me that the stage is being set slowly to attack Iran. There is a lot of drip feed of propaganda including the recent resignation of Saad Al Hariri prime minister of lebanon, and the talk about annulling the nuclear deal. Israel continues provocative attacks and support for terrorists on the Syrian borders and the demonisation of Hizbullah continues. Before these attacks there is always a slow build up through many angles, of propaganda. So please let us all unite to expose this.
This is “The 911 Post” I think Craig is happy for other conspiracies to be discussed on whatever his current post is (after page one has been completed).
But yes other conspiracies do need to be aired and exposed as facts and not theories.
So back to 911
Wheel photographed at corner of West and Rector (417 meters from base of WTC1)
https://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict128.jpg
As you can see it is extremely unbalanced, meaning it would tumble erratically 360 deg through x,y & z axes.
The wheel embedded in wall panel was discovered 200m (West & Ceder) from the base of WTC1.
Conclusions:
The Ceder Street wheel exited first followed by the Rector Street wheel and traveled through the same hole made by the missing panel.
The difference in distance in the Rector case (more than twice as much) is presumably attributable to the Ceder wheel dissipating energy when it got stuck and assisted with removing the reportedly 6 tonne panel and assisted in carrying it a 200m horizontal distance.
NIST estimate the exit velocity of the Rector wheel (with “significant uncertainty”) (why bother?) at 105mph.
There is considerable uncertainty about the speed of the aircraft when it entered the building
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18300
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18300
But the kinetic energy in the landing gear was taken into the building with the aircraft, the fuel explosion cannot be assumed to accelerate the gear because of the omni directional nature of the blast, it would hinder its progression rather than assist.
The observed resulting evidence of aircraft debris does not make sense. Even if the interior on those floors was a void; no columns, stairwell, lifts etc etc.
The University of Alaska are attempting to make some sense of the whole incident. The US government has no interest in answering the inconsistencies. That is a Conspiracy Fact.
Peter
Thanks for your explanation. I am aware of what you say but what has happened since 911 is a continuum of conspiracies by the establishment. To pigeon hole these into blog spots may be convenient for some but that is the whole point of what the current system wants us to. Details cease to matter, if you prove to us without shadow of doubt that this wheel carriage or this aluminium fuselage and this 4 inch steel bar is this or that, it matters not a little bit. What is actually happening now and what is costing more and more lives is what matters. We can continue to follow little titbits about this and that and lose sight of where the ball is at the moment. We in this space, I believe, all sincerely feel that there is a conspiracy. The conspiracy has been easy to define because it was made public beforehand and was openly discussed by Wesley-Clark.
I think that one can be blinded following these minute specialist details and discussing them, but what we are now seeing and experiencing is a continuation of what happened in 911. There is no respite. Witness what has happened in Libya and Syria. And there are still some who say that the reason why several hundred thousand were killed in Syria was because we did not interfere directly. These lunatics have no shame especially after what happened to Libya.
Currently the Syrian army is winning the war both against Daesh and Al nusra and affiliated ‘moderate rebels. It was very clear that the west, through Turkey has been supplying them both, and the trade of Oil with Turkey was only stopped after the Russian intervention and exposure of what was happening. However it is still too early to call this a victory because the US is using the the YPG and the so called SDF to try to curve up an area in East Syria for whatever purpose. There are even rumours that Daesh is surrendering directly to the SDF in order to outflank the SAA.
Now I know that it is an extremely gratifying exercise to practice your expertise (I have none) in the field of ballistics and explosives but in so doing you may be loosing sight of what is happening now and what is being planned.
page 161 of 208
“The amount of aircraft debris found to exit WTC 1 in the global impact analyses varied, as shown in Figure 9–118 to Figure 9–120. However, no portion of the landing gear was observed to exit the tower in the simulations, but rather was stopped inside, or just outside, of the core. In order to simulate the trajectory of specific pieces of aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building would be needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the
building, where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, can make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the structure. Modeling uncertainties may also have contributed to the inability to predict the trajectory of specific aircraft components.”
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05147.pdf
However NIST were absolutely certain regarding the internal layout of each floor.
Good to see that you have examined some of the NIST documents; so many criticise them without reading them at all.
This suggests to me that the buildings as simulated were stronger than in reality. Now why might that be? Compensation or insurance payouts, maybe?
PS: sorry I mistook you for a “no-planer”.
My feeling is, the ‘Saudi connection’ is a fake story deliberately implanted in the official narrative right from the start so that when the Government account began to wear thin they could reveal the Saudi one. And lo! Everyone cries, ‘Look! There has been a cover-up of Saudi involvement!’ And the world spends another ten years looking in the wrong direction.
And beneath the fake is another fake, and another fake beneath that, and then it turns out that one of the layers was only disguised as a fake. So you may as well give up.
What’s really fake is pretending the al Qaeda is actually separate from the Saudi aristocracy. In fact they are just two faces of the same psychotic power structure; inseparable as Jekyll and Hyde.
And even if all the whistle-blowers are evil plants, and all the played-down, hidden, obfuscated and formerly classified evidence is double-bluff fake, and Saudi Arabia played no part in 9/11, looking that way wouldn’t be the wrong direction. It is a direction that isn’t examined nearly enough, same as Israel. And that is no surprise, since the two are de facto allies.
You should listen to SA, because it is Iran which is danger:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-125/#comment-706030
There is no threat to Saudi Arabia whatsoever; they could stone the president’s daughter to death in public, but nothing would be done about it.
Something big is happening in Saudi Arabia
https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad
The king has just put under arrest many influential Saudis and this has to be linked with other happenings.
Thank you. I should have written that there is no US threat to Saudi Arabia; its great danger is its internal tension:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure
I particularly liked this Tweet:
– “Say everything is a CIA plot- you’re a ‘dipshit crazy conspiracy theorist’. Say everything is a Kremlin plot- you’ll get a newspaper column!”
Saudi Arabia is apparently the country with the third largest expenditure in weapons, over 70 billion per year and they have been slowly building this up with the help of the USA, UK and France. Having spent this money they are struggling in Yemen but never mind we get the money anyway.
https://southfront.org/saudi-arabias-armed-forces-military-analysis/
But what we do know is that there was a proven conspiracy that the US planned with Saudi Arabia to arm the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to bog down the then USSR in the war in Afghanistan. What we also do know is that this led to the formation of Al Qaeda. What we also do know is that Al Qaeda is very active in Syria and is very well supported by the US , Saudi Arabia and the ‘coalition of the willing’. What more do we need to join the dots?
@ SA November 5, 2017 at 19:56
What a lot of people are unaware of is that the US sent in the Mujahedeen BEFORE the Russians came in, in order to draw the Russians in, and ‘bleed’ them.
A mixture of Oliver North’s ‘neat trick’ and Baldrick’s ‘cunning plan’.
– “What more do we need to join the dots?”
This document:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092
– “The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.””
Salafism. The polite name for the Saudi state religion.
Thanks that is indeed the case.
@ KingofWelshNoir November 5, 2017 at 13:59
Exactly!
The limited hangout for the JFK assassination was and is that the Mafia did it. They may have played a role, but they have a long history of doing stuff for U.S. intelligence.
Varying simulation parameters for base, most severe and least severe
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05147.pdf
For Tower 1
page 257 (73 of 208 pdf)
For Tower 2
page 291 (108 of 208 pdf)
Most severe parameters for Tower 1 (that even they could not get the gear our of the building)
Speed of impact 472 mph,
Weight of aircraft 105%,
Failure strain of aircraft 125%
Failure strain of building 80% (least severe scenario 120%)
And they couldn’t get the gear out of the building
‘Fake Passenger Lists Flt11’:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4592
‘The “4” Flights of 9/11 – What about the Passengers? What happened to them?’:
http://letsrollforums.com//happened-passengers-4-flights-t20496.html?s=3160075b106788e12e94185473d5f80f&
‘Most people are not aware that there are issues with the 4 groups of people who flew on the 4 flights of 9/11 from 3 locations. There are so many issues it would take a newsroom full of dedicated reporters a long time to sift through it all. There are problems with the boarding of passengers on 3 flights. And on the 4th flight we find 2 boardings, an unusual event to say the least. Two of the aircraft, we are to believe didn’t even take off on 9/11, as this is what registers in the BTS database for flights 11 & 77 on 911. Two of the aircraft that allegedly struck the towers, can be plausibly shown to be drones, calling into question both passenger and crew from those respective flights. (11 & 175) While flight 77 obviously didn’t crash at the Pentagon from all evidence shown, and flight 77 is one of the 2 flight which BTS shows no departure time for. While flight 93 wasn’t even a regular flight on 9/11, it was created in the last 2 hours before it flew. And as you will see are good reasons to believe Flight 93 was boarded twice at Newark. If this sounds confusing, it is because it was meant to be so. But I believe this article shows it is possible to make some simple sense out of the days events and tie them all together…..’
‘…The BTS database shows that the 2 American airlines planes, flights 11 & 77, as having no wheels off time or departure times. This is actually a key to understanding 9/11 as well as the mystery of the planes & passengers…..’
There may have been another airline, apart from AA or UA, ‘Phantom Airlines’ Flights ‘Photoshop 1,2 and 3’.
After ‘The hole that wasn’t there’, it’s only fair to show ”The 9/11 woman who wasn’t there’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTIhzdFs3Y
‘Tania Head: The 9/11 Faker’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpNReEbDNG8&t=43
When I have time I’ll find the ‘PsyOpera’ section that shows Ace Baker (or his stand-in) going to the office of the guy in charge of the simulation of a Boeing cutting through the inards of one of the Towers, slicing through a floor, and then the floor magically ‘heals’ itself after the simulated plane exits the floor.
I’ve heard of ‘Smart’ phones, and ‘Smart’ meters (steer clear of both, especially the meters), but ‘Smart’ floors were a new one for me.
Not unlike the exterior columns of one of the Towers, as you (supposedly) see a plane going in, then the wall heals itself.
As has also been pointed out many times by various other Posters, the technicalities of how the WTC buildings came down, is very much a lesser consideration compared to finding out who was responsible; along with the strong examples of foreknowledge already recently cited, which at the very least means complicity in an act of mass murder, here’s potentially another example (I state potentially as the requested FBI documents cannot be found; also note the original Muck Raker Report is no longer available):
http://911blogger.com/news/2007-04-04/follow-%E2%80%9Cprior-knowledge-911-attacks-overheard-hebrew%E2%80%9D-story-fbi-looks-documents-where-they-cannot-be-found
You can find much better detail at archive.org including the original articles, scans of the business cards of the two officers, and of the two letters from Unit Chief Arthur Radford Baker, Office of Public and Congressional Affairs. It seems that Szekely wrote directly to Attorney General John Ashcroft about the conversation he’d overheard and to ask for protection, and Baker wrote back telling him to go to his local force because the FBI didn’t have legal authority to provide protection. Nonetheless, Szekely was still alive in 2007.
Here’s what I think is the best article, with links to other matters too:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070918060202/http://muckrakerreport.com/id324.html
Here’s the archived version of Macky’s link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070918060435/http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id387.html
No planers and demolition theorists please note: the overheard conversation concerned aircraft hitting the Twin Towers, not explosives.
The way I read this is that Szekely became terrified and unfortunately wrote to the highest authorities, who of course thought he was paranoid and so didn’t take him seriously, though if they had, any investigation would probably been scuppered like so many others were. It’s no surprise that records couldn’t be found after 9/11; everything embarrassing to the US authorities had been destroyed or classified, but it’s impossible to tell if that was due to complicity, people protecting their jobs, or departments hiding their failings.
But assuming what Szekely claims to have overheard is true and accurately reported, it is illuminating. From my first link above:
– As he watched and listened, a third man arrived to the meeting in a Lincoln Town Car. He emerged from the rear seat of the car while the driver and another passenger remained in the car. The two men leaning against the wall, upon seeing the arrival of the third man, changed their relaxed posture into that of attentiveness, signifying respect and the importance or ranking of the person that had just arrived. It was clear that the two men were waiting and expecting the arrival of the third, indicating that the meeting was pre-arranged.
– What the observer of these happenings heard beneath him after the normal niceties were exchanged between the three men alarmed him. The man who arrived in the Town Car said, “The Americans will learn what it is to live with terrorists after the planes hit the twins in September.” One of the men that had been leaning against the retaining wall expressed concerns regarding whether the upcoming presidential election (November 2000) between Bush / Cheney and Gore / Lieberman could impact the plans. The man that arrived in the Town Car pacified the doubts by saying, “Don’t worry, we have people in high places and no matter who gets elected, they will take care of everything.”
That would pretty much clear the Bush administration of complicity in the attack on the WTC at least, but not the cover-up, of course. But the powerful man who arrived by car said “terrorists”; the obvious implication being that the US would get a taste of what Israel suffers.
Convergence of interests. The religious strand of the Saudi power schism wanted to attack the US for the reasons Osama bin Laden and his associates have always said – support for Israel, US military in the land of the Holy Mosques etc. And powerful Israeli interests also wanted the US to suffer such an attack, to gain yet more US military support.
This is consistent with the “art students” and the Israelis with the cameras. I find consistencies far more interesting than creating mythology out of contrived and exaggerated “anomalies”.
Incidentally, the redaction on the Baker letters looks like was merely overwritten with a marker pen; you can see some of the typing underneath. I’ve tried adjusting the contrast, but if anyone is good with image enhancement you might get something interesting.
I think this is worth taking to the bottom, us conspiracy theorist (good to have you onside Clark) need to stand together and stand proud.
http://9-11.dnsalias.net/
“That would pretty much clear the Bush administration of complicity in the attack on the WTC at least, but not the cover-up, of course. But the powerful man who arrived by car said “terrorists”; the obvious implication being that the US would get a taste of what Israel suffers.”
That’s not haw I read it however I maintain;
The cover up was worse than the crime!
Both contenders and running mates were trusted to keep quiet, Why would Bush not be informed beforehand about what was planned and when it would happen at least he would be prepared. He could be schooled in his response. Bush knew beforehand, I have no doubt about that.
So back to the question raised a little earlier. What if the pilots had missed? Lost their bottle? What if the planes did hit but the buildings didn’t fall? The result would be a half arsed terrorist attack to take a few floors out of 2 skycrapers that could have been more successfully done by putting shoulder launched missiles in at lower floors, far less complicated to achieve logistically. Why make things as difficult as possible, increasing risk of failure to a maximum?
Come on Clark you’re one of us now.
– “Why would Bush not be informed beforehand about what was planned”
1) He wasn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, thus he might have dropped a clanger. He did drop several afterwards.
2) The principle of “Need to Know”, used by all covert agencies. He didn’t.
– “What if the pilots had missed?”
They’d have gone round again, or just crashed onto the city.
– “Lost their bottle?”
Nothing they could do about that. There never is.
– “What if the planes did hit but the buildings didn’t fall?”
The target was the people and their occupation; US economic imperialism. The people would have burned to death or jumped over the course of hours. Even more horror. Far too much attention is paid to the damn buildings.
– “Come on Clark you’re one of us now”
My attitude was never as different as you thought, but I hope never to fall into looking for confirmation of things I already suspect, which is one of my criticisms of the “conspirology” mindset and myth-building. Besides, I was born an outsider, and there’s no way back in.
The NIST report makes a valiant attempt to estimate the speed of impact of the two planes into the Twin Towers.
This is after all the most important factor in calculating the forces that impacted on the buildings, from this a mathematical model can be constructed that attempts to explain the sequence of damage and destruction that followed.
That was the purpose of the NIST study; to describe with explanation the collapse with reference to observed events taking account of the laws of engineering and science.
Without a confident starting point (the speeds) no confidence can be placed in any of the theories that flow from those assumptions.
Whilst available radar data was not utilised. In fairness the radar data has been rejected by pilots as “impossible”.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071219230238/http://911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study–AA11%2C_UA175.pdf
Instead photographic records were relied on. WTC 2 had very much more video source material and therefore one might think a prediction based on this methodology would be fairly accurate with a small margin of error. Not so!
For WTC 2 only 9 videos were used.
By manipulation of the data a range of impact speed estimates were produced. Two techniques were employed a Simple Method and a Complex Method, an average of the two were used in the NIST modelling.
The Simplified Method produced a range of impact speed of WTC 2 from 492 mph to 628 mph, a difference of 136 mph.
Chapter 7 beginning page 157 (page 252 of 290 pdf)
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101428
This is not science this is claptrap!
So let us look at it this way. The details don’t matter. Changing one government for another doesn’t matter. Why do we have all powerful prime ministers and Presidents in supposed democracies, who can play with our lives? I was amazed to see yet another major offshore fund leak from the Guardian, called ‘The Paradise Papers’ showing how the rich and powerful hide thier money in offshore tax havens. It is all legal, we are assured, and previously, when the Panama papers were published, Cameron condemned the practice but of course did nothing to make it illegal!
What is needed is a change in the system, not tinkering on the side, not independence for this small country or other, not advantage for our tribe or our group. What we need is what will make most of us happy and prosperous, it can be done. What we need is more empathy with others. Clark above has expressed some of this. And even though I may not agree with his theories or interpretation of 911 I can see that he has concerns for others.
Unfortunately the system is not about to change peacefully by its own will, there is too much vested interest by the rich and powerful but as long as we, the ordinary people, understand this, then we must interpret what happens around us in this light, There would be hope with someone like Corbyn, but I am pessimistic, even if he were to be elected, the powerful are too powerful to let him succeed.
‘Saudi Arabia blames Iran for missile launched from Yemen, warns it could be considered ‘act of war’:
https://www.rt.com/news/408864-saudi-iran-missile-war/
‘Saudi Arabia has accused Iran up being responsible for the ballistic missile launched from Yemen that targeted Riyadh airport on Saturday, warning that it could be “considered an act of war.”
In a statement in the wee hours of Monday, Saudi Arabia laid the blame for the attack directly at Iran’s feet, claiming it would not have happened had Iran not been supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen. “Iran’s role and its direct command of its Houthi proxy in this matter constitutes a clear act of aggression that targets neighboring countries, and threatens peace and security in the region and globally,” the statement reads, as cited by AP. “Therefore, the coalition’s command considers this a blatant act of military aggression by the Iranian regime, and could rise to be considered as an act of war against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
Saudi Arabia also said it “reserves [the] right to respond to Iran in the appropriate time and manner.”
The Saudi-led military coalition also announced it was closing off all land border crossings, seaports and airports in Yemen in response to the missile launch.
The coalition has been fighting against Shiite Houthi rebels, who took control of the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, in early 2015. The Saudis are backing ousted Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.
On Saturday, a ballistic missile was launched from Yemeni territory, allegedly targeting the King Khalid International Airport near the Saudi capital, Riyadh. It was intercepted and landed “on the airport’s grounds” causing little to no damage, according to Saudi Arabia’s civil aviation authority. No flights were disrupted by the attack…….’
Talk about pots and kettles! These Saudi Barbarians have been pouring weapons and paying proxy headchoppers to decimate Iraq and Syria for years.
They even arranged for their proxies to target Damascus International Airport.
They have been mercilessly bombing one of the poorest countries in the world, Yemen, and committing abominable War Crimes, yet when Yemen responds, the poor old Saudi perverts scream their bloody heads off.
Their Medieval ‘Kingdom’ will soon fall, In’shallah.
I wonder who is pushing the Saudis in their adventurism? They would hardly do it off their own bat.
But they know the West and local regimes have their back….
Paul
It matters little what the morality of a response is and kettles and pots don’t come into it. Iran is currently not exactly in the crosshairs but being slowly built up to be so by the ‘coalition of the willing’. Europe and UK have not yet signalled that they want an all out war and I suspect that there may be some money reasons behind it, as there is usually.
The righteousness of a response does not matter, all that matters is that you can carry out your threatened action with impunity. Watch for a slow build up of anti Iran hostilities in Europe soon.