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).
@ Herbie March 24, 2016 at 23:02
‘…but rather the plethora of weirdoes taking about thermite and lasers and all the rest of the disinfo garbage, ..’
I have to disagree with Dawson there. Nothing ‘weird’ about the iron spheres formed by the Thermite found in all the tested dust samples, or the molten iron/steel in the basements of all three towers (1,2 & 7) weeks after the event, except the ‘weirdness’ of jet fuel and office fires creating such impossibly hot temperatures.
By the bye, A&E are into their 3rd week of Webinars: Week 3 of Our New Webinar Series:
“The Twin Towers’ Explosive Destruction” http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=c26729ca9d&e=%5BUNIQID%5D in case anyone is interested.
There are 4 videos I generally trot out, ‘every one a winner’:
Alex Jones Interviews Aaron Russo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3NA17CCboA
(there is a longer version, made after Aaron’s death (he ‘contracted’ cancer in 2001, the year he started to speak out) which is also worth watching, but the actual interview while he was alive should be watched first;
ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11 (FULL documentary):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
“Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime” – VO ST FR :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW9P6s1IbGA
9/11 Pentagon Attack – Behind the Smoke Curtain – Barbara Honegger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk
Of course, as JSD says, he can find videos himself; but as there are so many out there, a bit of advice from someone who has been following 9/11 for about 12 years, as a priority, is likely to be useful.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have also put out useful ones.
A very good website which links to a number of trade-specific sites is ‘Patriots Question 9/11’.
Thank you for the links. That is partly the trouble. As with the JFK assassination, there is so much material that it is just bewildering, particularly for someone without any technical training.
Personally, I have no trouble believing that a neoconservative administration would be morally capable of initiating an attack on US citizens: a “new Pearl Harbor”, as it was famously called. I do not wish yourself or Mr Jones to think that I am in principle opposed to the idea. I am neither opposed to it nor committed to it. I accept that it is by no means unthinkable. Put very simply, the evidence before my eyes is that two planes were flown into buildings which fell down. A nearby third building fell down afterwards. On the face of it, that these were cause and effect does not seem unreasonable. But I will examine your good sources. Thank you.
You see, your disagreement with Herbie is an excellent example of all the trouble that 9/11 causes. Herbie describes ideas about thermite as disinformation and garbage. You, on the contrary, think it is excellent evidence in favour of the planes not being the sole cause of the collapsing buildings, presumably.
You are both opposed to the official version, but you have fundamental disagreements as to what constitutes evidence against the official version. Do you see the problem?
It’s good to see someone keeping an open and inquisitive mind either way as you’re demonstrating. For the sake of discussion, might you want to list 10 reasons why this wasn’t an inside job and was carried out exactly as the US government and mainstream media presented it?
I really do not think that I know enough to do that. I’ll do my best, if you insist, though.
I’ll give you one reason; none of the so-called and often contradictory evidence for it being an inside job makes any sense. Just looking at the thermite issue it’s an incendiary NOT an explosive not usually used for demolition work and which wouldn’t produce the rapid collapse, “squibs” etc claimed. Thermite also burns very fast and steel is a good conductor of heat, ie it would cool very rapidly, so how could thermite be responsible for there being molten steel weeks after the event (if indeed that is the case)? The steel would’ve had to have been heated to such a point that it would’ve vaporised or many tons of thermite would’ve had to be present to keep the steel molten.
Some might find this interesting although you may need to skip the more technical slides but there is a simple explanation of progressive collapse with some other examples towards the end.
http://www.slideshare.net/lwolberg/world-trade-center-collapse
Nanothermite and nanothermate ARE explosive:
‘Available papers [by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and others] describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives. The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:
2Al + Fe2O3 ? Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ?H = -853.5 kJ/mole.
The public announcements of the development of nanothermite composite materials as explosives date back several years before 9/11. As Dr. Frank Legge points out , “ researchers were describing methods of preparing nano-sized particles, using them in superthermite, and calling such material ‘explosive’ in 1997. It would therefore not be correct to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would be unable to utilize the material in demolition.”
In additon, 911research.wtc7.net notes the following:
One of the critiques of theories that thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers asserts that thermite preparations don’t have sufficient explosive power to account for the observed features of the buildings’ destruction. This criticism seems to be uninformed by knowledge of some of the aluminothermic preparations known to exist – particularly those being researched for military applications.
Indeed, as 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan has shown, there is substantial documentation detailing how nanothermite has been formulated to be explosive. For example, a summary report released at the 2008 AIChE conference by chemists at the University of Houston describes how nano-thermite composites can be engineered to create explosives:
Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications, such as rocket propellants, aircraft fuel and explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials, as they enable flexibility in energy density and power release through control of particle size distribution, stoichiometry and choice of fuel and oxidizer….’
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html
Also, who is claiming that nanothermite/nanothermate (technically it was nanothermate, as sulphur was present) was the ONLY explosive used? The nanothermite/ate would have made extremely short work of cutting the massive core columns into perfect length easily shipped out ‘scrap’, but one three hundred ton section of steel was ejected over a considerable horizontal trajectory, imbedding itself in another building. I would assume that would have required other explosives, as would the reduction to dust of all the concrete floors.
‘…so how could thermite be responsible for there being molten steel weeks after the event (if indeed that is the case)? The steel would’ve had to have been heated to such a point that it would’ve vaporised or many tons of thermite would’ve had to be present to keep the steel molten…..’
The reports of molten iron/steel abound; here are some (and I disagree with the article’s concern re it’s reasons for distrust of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux):
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
Some steel WAS vaporised (jet fuel and office fires can’t get anywhere near melting steel); and some steel girders looked like Swiss cheese:
Forensic Metallurgy: Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/
And for anyone who believes our government and ‘Security Services’ wouldn’t inflict such things upon their own citizens: ’53 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks’:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
Numbers 11-21 are of particular relevance re recent Paris and Belgian bombings!
Cui bono?
@Kempe
“Thermite also burns very fast and steel is a good conductor of heat, ie it would cool very rapidly, so how could thermite be responsible for there being molten steel weeks after the event.”
Steel is indeed a reasonably good conductor of heat. This would suggest that the office fires that apparently burnt at such a high temperature that they were capable of softening the structural girders to such a degree that they failed simultaneously, (or at least within milliseconds of each other and caused building 7 to collapse into its own footprint at freefall acceleration was of a particularly energetic type. The thermal conductivity of steel would have meant that the thermal energy would have been distributed throughout the thousands of tons of steel that framed the entire building. I’m not sure that the heat capacity of steel is so low that the physics works that way, although 9/11 seems to have been an extremely special day in the history of science. Most laws of chemistry and physics seem to have been suspended temporarily. (Perhaps this was written into the ‘Continuity of Government’ that was instituted on that day.)
“,,,ie it would cool very rapidly, so how could thermite be responsible for there being molten steel weeks after the event (if indeed that is the case)?”
I think you may be confusing the ability of steel to conduct thermal energy within the material itself to reach equilibrium with the rate at which energy will leave the mass of steel when encased in concrete and rubble. Tons of concrete can be an effective insulator.
All of the above is of course interesting, but distracts from the main point. A steel-framed building apparently collapsed into its own footprint at freefall acceleration due to burning office furnishings, the first time in history that this has occurred. Molten steel was found in the rubble many weeks after the collapse of the buildings. The official explanation remains risible to anyone who really examines the evidence.
@John Spencer-Davis March 25, 2016 at 09:52
It was not only called a ‘New Pearl Harbour’ after the event; a year before the 9/11 attacks, a ‘New Pearl Harbour’ was actually cited as a requirement for the US public to go along with massive military buildups and adventures: Project for the New American Century: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
and here’s a pdf of the document itself: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
And what many people are to this day unaware of is that ‘Pearl Harbour’ itself was deliberately provoked by FDR; he, high military officers and many big corporations wanted the US to enter WWII, but only 16% of the US public wanted to enter ‘another European war’. So FDR’s National Security Advisor came up with a specific ‘8 point plan’ that would provoke Japan to attack America (see ‘Day of Deceit’ by Robert B. Stinnett).
After a year of the US implementing the 8-point plan, Japan swallowed the bait, and attacked. The US had all the Japanese naval codes broken (though they officially claim otherwise; the Japanese Task Force was tracked across the Pacific (but Pearl wasn’t warned); and the Japanese did not maintain radio silence, as officially claimed by the US.
The ‘trick’ worked, and a million men signed up the day after the Pearl Harbour attack. The 2,400 odd US servicemen who died were officially mourned, while FDR and the others figuratively rubbed their hands with joy at the ‘success’ of their ‘cunning plan’.
Yes, I did know that a new Pearl Harbor was referred to as what it would take to get the public to go along at a suitable pace. That is in fact extremely suggestive when one considers the neo-con nutters involved in planning at that time. Thanks anyway.
“Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions.”
– Rebuilding America’s Defenses
Donald Rumsfeld was eagerly distributing copies of a book about Pearl Harbour in the months before sept 2001. In fact he seemed obsessed with the idea of a surprise attack….perhaps it was watching the film ?
http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/before-911-donald-rumsfeld-was.html
The awful 2001 “Pearl Harbor” movie, released May 21, 2001), was made with a great deal of assistance from the U.S. military.
The TV series “24”, which premiered on television November 6, 2001, must have begun production months before 9/11.
” Nanothermite and nanothermate ARE explosive: ”
Sorry but no, they are not.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/nano_complete_paper_final110501.pdf
You still haven’t answered my question of how thermite explains the presence of molten steel several weeks after the event.
Oh yes they are! (Cue ‘Oh no they’re not’); this really is becoming boring:
‘….1. This 2004 paper from Lawrence Livermore Labs is quite clear about nanothermites being –
“explosive composites based on thermite reactions.”
It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives…using sol-gel chemistry.”
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
2. This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
3. This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:
“All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”
It clarifies that —
[Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf
4. A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how –
“the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”
http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i24/p243109_s1?isAuthorized=no%20
5. In this paper, former NIST employee Michael Zachariah discusses –
“developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [i.e. nanothermite] for energy intensive applications involving explosives and propellants…”.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t
6. This article helps us understand how the military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a —
“new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times…resulting in a very rapid reactive wave…used in many applications, including…explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/?a=f
7. Unlike some energetic materials, nanothermites are “tunable”, meaning the “ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values.” Explosives generate pressure, as do nanothermites tuned to do just that.
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM
8. This conference paper states that –
“Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as… explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.”
http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P131370.HTM
9. This paper from the US Army describes how:
“These tunable nanoenergetic materials will be useful for various applications such as high-temperature non-detonable gas generators, adaptable flares, green primers for propellants and explosives, high power/energy explosives.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA481290&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
10. Even Wikipedia knows that nanothermite is used for explosive applications.
Nanothermites “are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
Of course, many more such references exist in the literature and it doesn’t take much effort to discover them. Anyone who is interested in truth and justice can find these and more.
Future analytical work on WTC dust and other samples will help us understand what exact kind(s) of nanothermite was used at the WTC and, perhaps, for what purposes it was used. Until then, the simple fact that nanothermite has been found throughout the WTC dust is itself explosive. And it is an incendiary fact that official investigators and mainstream media have ignored that explosive fact for more than two years.
[A] Steven E. Jones, et al, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, The Open Civil Engineering Journal Volume 2, 2008
[B] Steven E. Jones, et al, Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 19, January 2008,
[C] Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009,
[D] Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009
And to repeat, I have NEVER encountered a 9/11 Truther, video or article that says nanothermite/ate was the SOLE explosive used.
‘You still haven’t answered my question of how thermite explains the presence of molten steel several weeks after the event’; surely, the ball is in your court. You have given your ‘opinion’ that the steel would have cooled down quickly, but you fail to explain the many testimonies of molten steel/iron , some saying it ran in ‘rivers’, weeks after the event. Are they all lying or mistaken, just because you don’t think it possible, ‘in your opinion’?
Or maybe ‘Old Nick’ was down there, keeping it all superhot with his oxyacetylene torch, to keep the temperature up to that which he had become accustomed to in Hades?
I’ve yet to find a truther site that doesn’t concentrate on thermite/thermate and I’ve not read of traces of any other explosive yet being found. As for the thermite/thermate traces what has been found are the constituent elements namely iron, aluminium and sulphur. Now in a steel framed, aluminium clad building with acres of plasterboard partitions and massive amounts of plastics what else would you expect to find? There is no proof of the presence of thermite, thermate nano or otherwise anywhere at the WTC just the materials you’d expect to find in building of that nature after a fire.
I am not, for the time being, questioning the accounts of molten steel just questioning the oft quoted truther belief that thermite (or whatever) is the only explanation. As I’ve said the science of it just won’t work but then truthers don’t do science.
I sincerely believe you ‘do not do science’; if you did, you would very soon find out, researching thermite and spinoffs, that you do not get one steel girder, two hundred weight of aluminium cladding, a pinch of plasterboard and heat, stirring all the while.
The spherules of iron, produced and ejected by the thermite (for simplicity) reaction found in the WTC dust, were just what would be expected had a thermite reaction occurred, and not a witch’s cauldron mix of happenstance proximity.
Kempe
Please tell us what YOU believed happened on 9/11. Do you accept the official explanation in its entirety? If not, where do you differ?
Why couldn’t red herrings (nanothermite?) have been added to the site to be used later to discredit later dissenters from the official line?
Are you implying it could have been Tannerite?
No, I’m not. As a matter of fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of Tannerite.
Lysias it is a trade name for a “binary” explosive that these days can be bought from any comping shop. It is the red neck big boys fire works substitute
It is a variation of amfel if you will.
Why on earth do you appear to believe ‘nanothermite’ is a ‘red herring’?
Bye the bye, given Fukushima and the massive Pacific die-off, ‘red herrings’ may cease to be so far fetched.
If it’s true that it’s not an explosive (and I have no opinion on that, as I have no expertise,) then there has to be some explanation for its presence.
Good to see that discussion has broken out. Hello JSD.
fwl, I replied to your earlier question. Currently, I don’t even have time to catch up with all the comments.
Quick reminder – so far as I know, we don’t know what the molten metal was; we don’t know it to have been iron or steel. I suspect there was a lot of lead in those buildings.
Look the obvious way to proceed is to compare energy from explosives against the buildings’ own gravitational potential energy. The quantity of explosives required can be estimated from demolition surveys. It’s hard to imagine, but the piles of rubble were inevitably hotter than the buildings they came from. If we’re wondering why things stayed hot for weeks we should start by guestimating a temperature for the rubble pile.
Would lead have been used for the construction of the World Trade Center buildings? By the time they were built, the dangers of lead poisoning must have been well understood.
Not construction but contents. There were server farms in the Twin Towers, and they had rooms of lead-acid batteries to keep them running during power outages. UPSs – Uninterruptable Power Supplies. Some rooms had been reinforced to take the extra weight.
I suspect the buildings were overloaded, and that keeping this quiet is one of the cover-ups.
Am I right in saying that microscopic iron spheres are formed when vaporised iron condenses? Damaged and shorting mains electrical power components would have vaporised some steel, so the question is, how much? I remember one video of eyewitnesses surprised that power was still on in one of the towers after the aircraft impact. Don’t suppose anyone thought to read the meters…
@ lysias March 29, 2016 at 16:35
‘If it’s true that it’s not an explosive (and I have no opinion on that, as I have no expertise,) then there has to be some explanation for its presence.’
Even though it is an explosive (many links above, including Lawrence Livermore Laboratory), it’s main task was to cut the massive steel columns, which is why there wasn’t a massive steel skeleton (as there was when they built them, till they added the walls and outer cladding.
“Massive”?
Go on, do the scaling. Divide all the dimensions by, say, 100. Does the construction still seem “massive”? Do the scaling, or I’ll bore and annoy everyone by doing it myself.
Those buildings were NOT military grade. Quite the opposite.
For a start, dividing by 100 each floor ends up under one millimetre thick, and mostly not even steel. Yet the scaled tower would stand higher than the eaves of many houses.
@Clark March 31, 2016 at 10:56
‘ “Massive”?
Go on, do the scaling. Divide all the dimensions by, say, 100. Does the construction still seem “massive”? Do the scaling, or I’ll bore and annoy everyone by doing it myself.
Those buildings were NOT military grade. Quite the opposite.’
@Clark March 31, 2016 at 11:07
‘For a start, dividing by 100 each floor ends up under one millimetre thick, and mostly not even steel. Yet the scaled tower would stand higher than the eaves of many houses.’
Since when have civilian structures been classified as ‘military grade’ or otherwise?
Those Towers weighed in at about 500,000 tons apiece – and you don’t believe it would require a massive steel skeleton? http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml
And the Towers had been around 30-odd years, and withstood a serious fire, and another bomb attack in 1993 (courtesy of an FBI plot).
Again, why don’t you do something constructive, like watching the videos I linked for you previously, instead of going off on useless speculation (you appear to have no architectural or engineering knowledge – I don’t either, that’s why I rely on experts who ‘answer the questions’ and not to government-supplied ‘experts’ who lie, obfuscate, and don’t answer the questions, instead tie themselves up in knots trying to support the government ‘narrative’). Then you will have experts’ explanations and why the ‘official conspiracy theory’, or ‘narrative’ is technically impossible. That will surely cut down on your workload, and be far more useful in gaining an understanding of the real questions.
Just never cease to be amazed at the most remote claims about an unprecedented act in history, the 9/11 attacks, instead of establishing who was really responsible for it, and what made it such a success.
Paul, stuff comes in three grades. The lowest is “domestic”. Above that is “commercial” or “industrial”, and the highest is “military”. The Twin Towers were the cheapest way of creating office floor area in one of the most crowded, highest rent areas in the world. Their purpose, quite obviously, was to stack as many office workers as possible above the very limited available ground area.
My point about the word “massive” is that it is relative. People who wish to promote pre-rigged demolition use words like “massive” because it gives the impression that the Twin Towers just couldn’t have collapsed without explosives. But whether they could have collapsed or not is a matter of strength versus load, not rhetoric. Relative to the buildings’ size the steel frame was not “massive” at all, which is why I want you or one of the other pro-demolition theorists to do the scaling and prove it to yourselves – if I do it myself you lot probably won’t bother considering it, and might even start accusing me of being pro-war again.
I could have been a good engineer in any field but I chose a different course in life. My aptitude for physics is first rate. In one year’s exams I scored 97%, the next closest being in the high 80s. On going through the paper I pointed out a mistake in the marking (to groans from the rest of the class) causing my score to be revised to 98%. I was one of the two best physics pupils to pass through my state grammar school in the memory of the physics staff, who urged me to take the Oxbridge entrance exams. Trowbridge doesn’t like my ability either when I point out that lightning will conduct into aluminium rather than pass through a hole in it, and that Earth orbit is a poor place for energy beam weapons because the power density available up there is rather low.
Yes, you’re relying on a small minority of experts who insist upon deliberate demolition. I strongly suspect that most who have signed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s petition are concerned that building regulations were transgressed, either in construction or post-construction modification and loading. Even the towers’ designers and construction engineers don’t insist upon deliberate demolition. To reframe a couple of your points:
See how easy it is to construct emotive language? I’m not interested, because how persuasive certain words seem has no bearing upon whether buildings stand or fall.
Yes I’ve been working through the videos when I’ve had time. I’ve watched the first quarter of Meet the Experts and whole of the interview of Aaron Russo – over an hour, in which he reported just one single thing from Rockerfeller relevant to 9/11, which was that eleven months before 9/11 he said that there would be “an event” that would be “completely phony”. Rockerfeller didn’t say what or when, just that it would be used as a pretext to attack and invade Afghanistan and then Iraq. You could have told me that and saved me a lot of time. Being a “conspiracy theorist” I have no argument with it anyway; there’s considerable evidence for foreknowledge.
Paul, from your Eric Chen link:
I’ll calculate the volume and the average density later. Or someone else can, but of course no one will because they all wish to promote the belief that the Twin Towers were supremely strong.
@ Clark: ‘…whole of the interview of Aaron Russo – over an hour, in which he reported just one single thing from Rockerfeller relevant to 9/11, which was that eleven months before 9/11 he said that there would be “an event” that would be “completely phony”. Rockerfeller didn’t say what or when, just that it would be used as a pretext to attack and invade Afghanistan and then Iraq….’
Err, just one single thing about 9/11? What about ‘US troops hunting through caves for Arabs’ (paraphrasing slightly), what about the ‘War on Terror’ that would ensue? Such is not highly important and relevant, given the information came from one of the top banking families in the world, and has come to pass as per plan?
That Nick Rockefeller clearly demonstrated his sociopathy, when he asked Russo ‘Why do you care for these people? Look after yourself, your family’.
And much else that he told Russo, while not directly relating to 9/11, would be immeasurably easier to pull off under the ‘unbrella’ of 9/11 and the phony ‘War on Terror’, such as everyone being fitted with RIFD chips and all money being on cards, which could be wiped centrally if folks didn’t kowtow to the ruler’s diktats; though not mentioned, the ‘Patriot Act’ and burgeoning massive private data collection was also brought in under the 9/11 ‘umbrella’, as were wars since Afghanistan and Iraq.
Re your remarkable aptitude for physics, all I can say is why on earth can’t you therefore get your head around the fact that real professors, who did go on to Uni and get their degrees, such as Niels Harrit and many others, say the ‘Official Narrative’ of the collapses contravenes Newton’s Laws of Physics?
Would you REALLY have the front to debate any of them, and postulate your theories? I don’t think so!
Paul, sorry, yes I forgot the bit about Arabs in caves. But all anyone seems to debate about 9/11 is whether the buildings were demolished by pre-rigged demolition charges, and actually Russo didn’t report Rockerfeller as saying anything at all about that. The thing I found most interesting is that hopes of RFID-chipping everyone come from the banking elite – interesting to find its origin, though really quite unsurprising.
As for debating the physical dynamics of the collapses, sure I would! “What, you’re trying to tell me that a concrete floor ten centimetres thick but unsupported over 20 metre spans, designed to support statically about three or four times its own weight, would halt the descent of ten storeys of building debris impacting it at between X and Y metres per second? How?” (sorry, I can’t be bothered to calculate X and Y right now.) Conversely, if anyone were to show me a good physical argument to the contrary, I would accept it.
Paul, I happen to have this aptitude for understanding physical systems, and for decades I’ve been using it to make and repair all sorts of things. Most failures are inherent in the original design, and usually I attempt to eliminate such weaknesses in my repairs. My own repairs fail too, and when they do I try to improve upon them. This has given me extensive experience in how things break and fail; I keep a copy of Murphy’s Law Complete – All the Reasons Why Everything Goes Wrong by Arthur Bloch on my technical bookshelf. The Twin Towers failed the way I’d expect such structures to fail. The collapses confirm Newton’s laws; I’ve read theories to the contrary, but those I’ve looked into so far have proven hopelessly unrepresentative of the physical system.
On the other hand, Building 7’s collapse still seems very odd, and also highly convenient in stimulating fifteen years of pointless argument over whether the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with demolition charges, very effectively drawing most attention away from potentially more productive investigation while simultaneously helping to discredit and marginalise the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. I’m not saying that Building 7 was definitely brought down by explosives – I simply don’t have access to enough evidence to decide – but finite element analysis can be done just as effectively before a structure has collapsed as after, if you see what I’m hinting at…
Fifteen years of this, but the obvious other aspect has been completely ignored, namely, that if the Twin Towers really were demolished, suspects need to be identified and evidence presented against them – just proving demolition was never going to be enough in itself because it says nothing about the perpetrators.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has been quite pathetic in this matter – a couple of inappropriately qualified academics made unsupportable claims that the collapses of the Twin Towers contravened Newton’s laws. Those claims were utterly wrong, but had they been right they would have been unassailable and as a consequence the majority of Truthers based their hopes upon them. Onto these arguments were heaped firstly the assumption that the collapses therefore proved pre-rigged demolition, and then onto that the further assumption that US government agencies therefore must have been responsible.
We, the 9/11 truth Movement, have gone out onto an unsupportable limb, ignoring all the other arguments and discrediting our movement by stubbornly clinging to One Big Theory that 9/11 was perpetrated by One Big Enemy. I’m sorry to say it, but the so-called conspiracy-theorist’s mindset has played a central role in that failure; this idea, which I’ve encountered repeatedly in this thread, that anyone who argues against pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers has to be doing so either because they’re “working for the bad guys”, or because they need convincing that 9/11 could have any elements of covert plotting at all.
As I’ve said repeatedly, Mike Ruppert warned us of this shortly after 9/11.
A further note: the “War on Terror” was and is phony, but terrorism itself never was and the resource wars it has been used as a pretext for have increased it an order of magnitude or two – a self-fulfilling prophecy I strongly suspect to have been anticipated and exploited.
Salafist- / Wahhabist-inspirad “jihadism” (scare-quotes as the term is a calculated smear against Islam) has been a breakthrough for the Neocons, a multi-edged sword with all edges in their favour. Such fanatics can be covertly and deniably directed into places where escalation would serve Neocon objectives – compare Libya and Syria. And they have rendered false-flag attacks mostly redundant – why risk exposure of a false-flag attack when there are “jihadists” who will do it for real? They have provided much of the pretext for total surveillance. The use of them as proxy forces seems almost mundane. I feel sorry for them; indoctrinated and brutalised from birth, prepared to sacrifice themselves for a falsely concocted cause, unaware that they are manipulated and exploited, they generally don’t live long and usually their “allies” turn on them and exterminate them.
I don’t know about the 9/11 hijackers (discussion seems to be bogged down interminably in arguments about pre-rigged demolition), but the proposition that they were dodgy Saudi Arabians, probably infiltrated into the US and protected from investigation by certain elements within the CIA, seems entirely consistent with other purposes such extremists serve towards Neocon objectives.
You’re still ‘at it’! ‘…a couple of inappropriately qualified academics made unsupportable claims that the collapses of the Twin Towers contravened Newton’s laws…’
A couple? Inappropriately qualified?
Why don’t you fully check out my links and A&E website, THEN if you still consider them ‘inappropriately qualified academics’, come back and name them, and why you, whilst knowledgeable about physics but without qualifications anywhere approaching theirs, consider them so.
Nick Rockefeller’s prediction of a ‘cashless society’ has every chance of success; these Bozo’s say what they want done (in Bilderberg meetings) and their puppet politicians, Military and ‘Security’ assets make sure it comes about, by hook or by crook.
‘The Demise of Cash is almost upon us’: 03 August 2015 | 1984 views | 3
https://www.finextra.com/blogs/fullblog.aspx?blogid=11384
Another prediction Rockefeller gave, was after the ‘War on Terror’ was launched, they would go after Venezuela (huge oil reserves, albeit much tar sands); in 2002 the US backed a coup in Venezuela, but due to unprecedented popular support, and much military support, it was overturned. Now, of course, Hugo Chavez is dead (he conveniently ‘contracted’ cancer, just like Aaron Russo, Castro and many others):
‘The Murder of Chávez. The CIA and DEA Cover Their Tracks’:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/03/14/murder-chavez-cia-and -dea-cover-their-tracks.html
The Opposition, thanks to massive jiggery pokery and US interference, won the majority in Parliament; already they are trying to get rid of the Supreme Court justices, roll back many projects of benefit to the poor, and enact a ‘get out of jail free’ policy for their criminal and/or murderous ‘friends’ in clink.
The plutocrats need to get rid of cash if they are to impose negative interest rates on all of us.
@ Clark April 1, 2016 at 18:06
‘…I don’t know about the 9/11 hijackers (discussion seems to be bogged down interminably in arguments about pre-rigged demolition), but the proposition that they were dodgy Saudi Arabians, probably infiltrated into the US and protected from investigation by certain elements within the CIA, seems entirely consistent with other purposes such extremists serve towards Neocon objectives.’
You’d learn a lot more about the ‘alleged’ highjackers in ‘ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
Rather odd there’s NOT ONE picture of ANY of them boarding even one of the ‘hijacked planes’; the FBI REFUSED to give a British brother of a victim a passenger manifest of the plane that was reported as killing him, and there were not even pictures of other passengers boarding!
Still, ‘Brutus said the planes were highjacked, and Brutus is an honourable man’, (or so some say!).
Here we go again; One Big All-Powerful Enemy, conspiracy-theorists’ mindset:
So if the elite can bring about whatever they choose, how come the corporate system has to run a massive propaganda news media network? It even failed recently; in the UK, they didn’t get the votes to militarily overthrow the Syrian government.
I’ll look up the academics later, but as I remember it the two major proponents of pre-rigged demolition were an energy and nano-materials scientist, and a theologian. Have you bothered looking up the qualifications and experience of the gravity-driven collapse proponents? My impression is that you’re cherry-picking.
So, the Saudi Arabian system is all nice and cuddly, is it? What about Springman’s revelations?
Actually, I’m getting sick of this. I’m not finding any open-mindedness. You seem to have decided where you want to go, and you intend to get there “By Any Means Necessary”. Which of course is why I have to do all the work, while you just sit there indulging your ego demanding that I watch several hours of video. You won’t calculate the buildings’ density, you won’t scale the steel columns, you won’t do ANYTHING that might weaken your foregone conclusion. You won’t even lay out the conclusion you’re trying to steer others towards.
Basically, treat me as an equal or I’ll just fuck off.
Look, Newton’s laws are really simple. If gravity-driven collapses really defy Newtons laws it could be shown in half a page of working. BUT I HAVE SEEN NO SUCH PAPER. Show me it, the relative qualification of the academics be damned.
You, Paul, must have a reason for accepting the arguments of a very small minority, and dismissing the vast majority as having all been knobbled in some way. So I think you should set that out…
Kempe, I looked through your Slideshare thing but found it unusable. It seems to be the slides to accompany a lecture and as such the majority of the terms are not defined. However. it looks quite thorough. Interesting to see different collapse curves with and without air resistance, and rate of expulsion of air during the collapses.
I was already aware that one of the arguments for pre-rigged explosives was that the top of the South Tower starts by tipping to one side but then proceeds to fall more than it tips, before becoming obscured in its own cloud of dust. The argument I read ran that, by conservation of momentum, the top section should have continued tipping but was prevented from doing so when pre-rigged explosives pulverised it. So I watched the collapse of the South Tower again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
Conservation of momentum can’t actually be applied in such circumstances as the bottom of the building was still attached to the ground which has effectively infinite momentum compared to the moving mass. But from the video you can see that the top had almost ceased swinging outwards and was moving mostly downwards before the dust obscured the view.
Near the top of the building, the dust does not blast outward as if driven by explosions; it gathers and billows, and as the building falls, it is even sucked back inward as air refills the space that the top of the building has just vacated.
The major projection of dust occurs much lower down (obscured by foreground buildings in most videos) and at the end of the collapse rather than consistently throughout the collapse. This is consistent with dust dispersal by expelled air rather than explosives.
Indeed, pre-rigged demolition theory requires that explosives were detonated in a timed sequence, starting at the impact level, then destroying the integrity of the top section, meanwhile blowing progressively lower floors in an accelerating sequence to produce the illusion of progressive collapse. So we would expect a wedge shaped dust plume widest at the top, where the most explosives had been detonated simultaneously and where the dust had been projected for the longest time.
In fact we see the opposite, with most dust projected from the bottom, from the end of the collapse period onward. This is consistent with the collapse producing the dust, most of the dust being expelled along with the air as the fall of debris was arrested.
So, these “massive” Twin Towers. If you could have closed all the openings and put them in water, do you reckon they’d have sunk or floated?
Floated, easily.
Key to buoyancy is does the object displace a greater weight of water than it weighs? WTC 1 and 2 were 63.4 m long each side and 415 m tall so 63.4 x 63.4 x 415 = 1,668,117 cubic metres. One cubic metre of water weighs one tonne, the weight of each tower was about 500,000 tonnes so yes, if watertight the towers would’ve floated. If laid on one side they’d have had a draught of 19 m so the majority of the building would’ve been out of the water.
As for the thermite question chemistry is only going to detect the constituent parts which as I’ve pointed out were present in abundance in the fabric of the buildings anyway. Most “truth” sites run with an estimate of 20,000 lbs of thermite or just a tad over 9 tonnes. Ignoring the difficulties of getting this bulk of material into the WTC and placing it, which would’ve required removal of most the internal walls, the collapse of both towers created one million tonnes of rubble so for someone to take a handful of samples and just happen to find material which made up 0.0009% of the total present is really one hell of a long shot. Did he win the lottery that day as well?
Clark:- I did say that the slide show was a bit technical!
Kempe
Please tell us what YOU believed happened on 9/11. Do you accept the official explanation in its entirety? If not, where do you differ?
The official US government report by NIST into the collapse of WTC7 was forced to admit that WTC7 went through a period of freefall acceleration due to the failure of 1 out of 80 massive steel columns.
a) Freefall is impossible without explosives removing the building materials in the way
b) If one column was vaporised the building wouldn’t collapse in that way and in 7 seconds
c) There’s a group of over 2,500 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth who say that the collapse of all 3 towers exhibit all the features of controlled demolition
Too much is spouted about this subject.
You could study it for the rest of your life.
The movement needs consolidation.
There’s millions of ‘truthers’ but we’re now heavily divided with many understandably paranoid. I’m sure ‘agents’ have played their part but seem fairly unnecessary now because of in-fighting.
In the beginning we were like family because there seemed to be so few of us.
We need to re-group and agree to 10 or even 100 key undeniable facts which make the official story impossible.
If we then spread the list in an organised fashion, it should be front page of every news outlet within a year.
Remember we only have to prove 1 of them, which we can easily. They have to prove everything
Most of the crime scene evidence has been illegally destroyed.
Danny Jowenko (now deceased) Europe’s leading controlled demolition expert said WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition. Not something he would have said if he wasn’t certain. He could have said it looks like controlled demolition but would have to investigate further.
Danny Jowenko died in a one-car crash (‘Boston Brakes’ type, where a third party gains remote control of all a car’s controls via it’s onboard computer, I strongly suspect) just three days after he had been quoted on Press TV by Dr. Alan Sabrosky regarding Building 7; the ‘official narrative’ states no one died in Bldg. 7, yet Barry Jennings stated he walked over dead bodies when being escorted out of the building: he then mysteriously ‘died’ two days before the NIST Final Report:
http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.co.uk/
‘…The significance of the Barry Jennings mystery is that his personal story as recounted on video leads to the conclusion that the destruction of the towers on 9/11 was planned. No cause of death has been made public, and the mainstream press has not even covered the death of this American hero.
Summary of Case
Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7. Jennings was Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. On September 11th, 2001, he saw and heard explosions BEFORE the Twin Towers fell, while attempting to evacuate the WTC 7 Command Center with NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Hess. Jennings publicly shared his experiences with a reporter on the day of 9/11/01, as well as in a lengthy 2007 video interview with Dylan Avery, a small clip of which was then released; subsequently his job was threatened and he asked that the taped interview not be included in Loose Change Final Cut.. However, after an interview with Jennings was broadcast by the BBC in their program The Third Tower ostensibly refuting what he had previously stated to Avery, Avery felt compelled to release the full original video interview to show the distortions made by the BBC. The cause of Jennings’ death has not been made public, and a private investigator hired by Avery to discover the cause and circumstances surrounding his death refused to proceed with the investigation. In spite of the significance of Jennings’ position with NYC on 9/11 and his controversial eyewitness testimony regarding the collapse of WTC7, the media has not investigated or reported on his death, nor reported on his statements.
The following links will take you to the original UNCUT Loose Change interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmeY2vJ6ZoA
http://southeastasianews.org/main/barry_jennings.html
William Rodriguez, who was made a ‘Hero of the United States’ for his heroism re-entering the burning WTC 1 three times, to assist Firemen and other First Responders to get to parts of the building (many doors were locked, and he was the only ‘Master Key’ holder to dare to enter the damaged building) and to help out survivors (he personally brought out about fifteen, but was instrumental in the safe exit of hundreds), said he heard many explosions in the building – the first being a massive one below him (he was in his office in Basement 1, there were some six basement levels) some 7 seconds BEFORE the explosion from the top (supposed ‘plane crash’). He had to give his evidence to the 9/11 Enquiry ‘behind closed doors’, and his testimony was not mentioned in the report; some 150-odd other eye witnesses who heard explosions (including many Firemen and other First Responders) were not allowed to testify to the 9/11 Report.
Whilst originally feting William Rodriguez, with Bush giving him his ‘Hero’ medal and offers of giving him his own TV show, as well as attempts to recruit him as a politician, he was dropped like a hot potato by the PTB when he insisted on publicly restating his experiences of hearing explosions in the building. He lost about two hundred friends in the collapse.
http://www.william911.com/
What if you’re wrong? What if so many in the Truth Movement are barking up the wrong tree, and the buildings weren’t pre-rigged for demolition? What damage would all this be doing to the cause? What if the real concealment lies elsewhere, ignored?
I’m just not seeing the necessary evidence for pre-rigged demolition. Many advocates for a proper investigation look at Building 7’s collapse and think they have a watertight case, but the vast majority of scientific and engineering community remain unconvinced, and as I continue to investigate I see why.
I listened to Barry Jennings very carefully; I made notes and even transcribed some of the interview. Barry Jennings didn’t know anything remotely worth killing him for. Yes, maybe there were bodies in the lobby of Building 7, but that was hours before it collapsed. Yes he heard explosions, but there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of explosions and again that was hours before the collapse. If he said he’d found demolition charges or seen explosives being planted then silencing him would make sense but he didn’t, and murdering him for what he did say would have been stupid, raising suspicions unnecessarily.
Please, please look up “confirmation bias”. Yes, Barry Jennings died, but you wouldn’t regard it as suspicious unless you already believed in pre-rigged demolition, so you can’t take his death as further evidence.
rob Jenkins, 07:33
Actually you’d expect descent slower than free-fall even with explosives, due to resistance from air and random debris.
Watch the videos more closely. You’ll see that the “mechanical penthouse” sort of falls in through the roof long before the outside of the building comes down.
Building 7 was mostly hollow at the base and the core was suspended above this cavity by a truss system about seven floors up. It was a dead weird building, straddling an old transformer substation and built partly on older foundations intended for a building of less than half the size. I suspect what happened is that the trusses collapsed and the core started down into that cavity, literally pulling the outside of the building down after it, which was how the outside managed to achieve the acceleration of free-fall in vacuum!
NIST said there were no sounds of explosions at the onset of collapse, but some witness reports and videos suggest otherwise. There was no sign of extensive, sequenced explosives as used in controlled demolition, and the collapse, though close to symmetrical, wasn’t exactly “controlled”; one adjacent building was written off and another cost millions to restore.
What happened to Building 7 was decidedly strange, what with its nearly symmetrical and faster than free-fall in air collapse, Silverstein’s “pull it” remark and the BBC reporting its collapse early. But its time before collapse more than doubled its fireproofing specification, and its collapse was expected by the emergency services who’d heard it groaning and creaking all afternoon, and saw large deformations developing in its shape. After all these years I’m still not sure what happened to it, but I certainly wouldn’t stake a proper investigation of the whole of 9/11 on the insistence that building 7 was pre-rigged with explosives. A truck bomb in the loading zone could have brought it down, for instance, or maybe it just collapsed.
I’m pretty sure this is false. Check the website and read carefully (beware confirmation bias!). I think you’ll find that a minority support pre-rigged demolition of all three buildings and a larger minority support explosives initiating the collapse of Building 7. Most are concerned that NIST’s investigation and the removal of structural steel concealed that building codes were breached in construction. Check the wording of the petition, too. I’m pretty sure that there are far more professionals concerned about deficiencies in construction rather than pre-rigged demolition.
Paul, I’m sorry I get narky sometimes. I suffered very heavy religious indoctrination in my early years, and I’m very sensitive about being herded towards specific beliefs, and about group members all supporting each other’s beliefs. Obviously, group members don’t realise that they’re doing it; they’re utterly sincere.
In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you have to profess belief in their creation myth and reject evolution; if you start asking awkward questions you’re considered to have been corrupted by Satan the Devil. I’ve found a similar effect among proponents of pre-rigged demolition. Your own comment to me that I should “do something useful” rather than consider any contrary hypotheses somewhat jangled my nerves.
Kempe, yes. If the Twin Towers could have been floated vertically, only thirty storeys would have been below the waterline, eighty above – though I haven’t allowed for the underground portions of the buildings. But the twin Towers were really quite light for their size; their average density was remarkably low.
Of course, that’s just the buildings’ own weight, completely empty. I wonder how much load they were actually carrying, what with all the additional contents, modifications, added cabling and computers etc…
The ‘massive strength’ of a battleship is not negated by the fact that it can float.
I also was ‘indoctrinated’ with religion, in my case RC. I now consider the Vatican a cesspit, but I’m still a Christian, albeit ‘non-denominational’.
For all their faults, I admire Jehovah’s Witnesses for their persistence in trying to spread the beliefs they have taken on board – a very important one which they stress and with which I totally agree – is that the Devil is the ‘Prince of this World’ (which is how Jesus referred to him at least three times, as recorded in the New Testament).
Again, if I was in your shoes, I would want to see exactly what the majority of experts who disputed the ‘Official Narrative’, or ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’, said about it, not just a couple.
David Ray Griffin (whom I presume you were referring to) claims no such expertise; he refers to other’s work. And to logic!
Why go off on speculations, before THOROUGHLY checking the ‘Experts’ opinions? If you find them at fault, by all means, expose them!
What do you think of NIST? Vote for Your Favorite Caption:
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=a9dc689590&e=%5BUNIQID%5D
@ Clark April 4, 2016 at 19:33
‘…I listened to Barry Jennings very carefully; I made notes and even transcribed some of the interview. Barry Jennings didn’t know anything remotely worth killing him for. Yes, maybe there were bodies in the lobby of Building 7, but that was hours before it collapsed. Yes he heard explosions, but there are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of explosions and again that was hours before the collapse. If he said he’d found demolition charges or seen explosives being planted then silencing him would make sense but he didn’t, and murdering him for what he did say would have been stupid, raising suspicions unnecessarily.
Please, please look up “confirmation bias”. Yes, Barry Jennings died, but you wouldn’t regard it as suspicious unless you already believed in pre-rigged demolition, so you can’t take his death as further evidence…’
I don’t need to look up ‘confirmation bias’; of course the reason I believe Barry Jennings was murdered was because I believe the building was demolished with demolition charges, and sure, maybe he just ‘happened’ to die before he became sought after as a witness when the final NIST report was to be released two days later.
Just as Danny Jowenko died two or three days after Dr. Sabrosky was interviewed on Press TV and spoke of Jowenko’s absolute confidence that Bldg. 7 was brought down with controlled demolition.
What he said was the stairs blew up while he was trying to exit the building; he and his companion got back to the level they had been, looked out of the window and ‘both Towers were still standing’. So, no debris damage, already major explosions and people dead in the lobby. You don’t see any problem for the NIST report, which claimed ‘nobody died in Building 7’? Next time you ‘very carefully’ check something, be a bit more ‘extra careful’ not to miss salient points like that.
Further, a Private Eye firm took money from the ‘Loose Change’ group to investigate, then returned the money and were told never to contact them again. The family couldn’t be traced; NO cause of death was ever announced.
‘..a) Freefall is impossible without explosives removing the building materials in the way
Actually you’d expect descent slower than free-fall even with explosives, due to resistance from air and random debris…’
What on earth is that supposed to mean? The building only fell at freefall for part of the descent anyway; are you SERIOUSLY asking me or anyone that a building would collapse quicker, or at the same speed, without explosives??
‘…Watch the videos more closely. You’ll see that the “mechanical penthouse” sort of falls in through the roof long before the outside of the building comes down…’
One doesn’t have to look closely; it’s as plain as a pikestaff the ‘penthouse’ collapses down first, but ‘long before the outside of the building’? A fraction of a second before, sure, and that has been part of the proof that it was a controlled demolition. That is how a normal CD is set, to bring the building inwards, to ‘implode’ it, so as not to spread rubble and damage beyond it’s footprint as much as possible.
‘…and the collapse, though close to symmetrical, wasn’t exactly “controlled”; one adjacent building was written off and another cost millions to restore…’
Err, what exactly gives you the idea the other buildings were damaged by Building 7, rather than Twin Tower debris and/or explosions in the ‘damaged’ buildings themselves?
‘… A truck bomb in the loading zone could have brought it down, for instance, or maybe it just collapsed….’
But the PTB say fire brought it down. Would none of them have known if a truck bomb had gone off?
‘…I’m pretty sure this is false. Check the website and read carefully (beware confirmation bias!). I think you’ll find that a minority support pre-rigged demolition of all three buildings and a larger minority support explosives initiating the collapse of Building 7. Most are concerned that NIST’s investigation and the removal of structural steel concealed that building codes were breached in construction. Check the wording of the petition, too. I’m pretty sure that there are far more professionals concerned about deficiencies in construction rather than pre-rigged demolition….’
But these checks are your job; you’re the one who doubts them, not me. Why be ‘pretty sure’, ‘I think you’ll find’ and ‘Most are concerned’ (the latter a total fiction: you cannot say ‘Most are concerned’ when you haven’t checked them); why not just go to the source, their website, and find out who they are, and what they say???
Tom McGuire a name associated with a 911 memorial T-shirt. In 2001 Tom McGuire at ‘Skunkworks knew the destructive power from the heat of a ‘loose’ plasma that might one day be contained by magnetic fields as a source of energy. But hey it was in the depths of the Pentagon that such lithium tritium fusion reactors might be a great way to ‘dustify’ high rise buildings…
So would mini-nukes, which a number of people believe were used to destroy the foundation core columns in all three buildings. That would explain the extraordinarily high temperatures maintained in all three buildings for weeks after the event, and also the movement of the ‘bathtub’, a massive concrete structure to stop the waters of the Hudson River flooding the foundations. It would also explain the ‘volcanic’ look of the crater after the debris was removed; I have only seen one picture of it, but it definitely looks like the rock had melted. I doubt it was like that when the foundations were laid, but I suppose it’s possible.
I personally have an open mind on the mini-nuke question, and don’t use it in my arguments for demolition.
If a secret new technology was used, that would explain why there are anomalies that people have not been able to explain.
Mini-nukes are also suspected by some to have been used in the Bali bombing (where the rubble was quickly collected and dumped at sea), as well as in Yemen. Also suspected of being used in the Fukushima disaster; an Israeli ‘Security’ team had been to the plant with a strange ‘camera’, that looked very similar to a min-nuke design. Japan had expressed support for the Palestinians, and had also offered to reprocess uranium for Iran: ‘Report: Japan offers to enrich uranium for Iran’:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3853864,00.html
Also, the ‘Stuxnet’ virus was reputedly found to have contaminated Fukushima’s computer control system: ‘The Argument that Fukushima Was Sabotaged’:
http://www.henrymakow.com/theargumentfukushimasabotage.html
Police Scotland are so worried that their officers aren’t capable of making up their own minds, that they have ordered all copies of 9/11 video ‘Incontrovertible’ that have been given to policemen to send them to HQ.
And the Scottish Fire Service were so upset with one of their fire fighters appearing in the video, and distributing copies to fellow firemen, that they disciplined him, which led to his resignation from a job he loved.
Brian Maxwell resigns
Edinburgh Firefighter Resigns over Ignored Safety Risk to Colleagues
In an act of admirable altruism and self-sacrifice, Edinburgh firefighter, Brian Maxwell resigned on Monday over his treatment by and attitude of senior officers at Scottish Fire and Rescue (SFR) following his appearance in online documentary INCONTROVERTIBLE.
Having served 15 years with SFRS, Maxwell handed in his notice, no longer willing to operate in an organisation that at best seems indifferent to the unexplained yet barely publicised collapse of a 47 storey New York skyscraper that raises grave concerns over the official narrative of September 2001. The film centres on the sudden and unprecedented fall of the steel-framed high-rise known as WTC 7 (below). Maxwell was disciplined for bringing it to colleagues’ attention and for his part in the documentary – a documentary, it should be noted, that was funded by many firefighters and police officers.
The Official Story
It would take 7 long years before the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that WTC7 collapsed ‘due to normal office fires’. The building, despite only suffering relatively minor fires on its lower floors, would collapse swiftly and suddenly to the ground in less than 7 seconds. To this day, NIST refuses to release its computer input data detailing just how the building fell. Regardless of this, and if the official story is to be believed, the safety implications are not only massive, they have not been disseminated to those most in danger – our Emergency Services.
The Risk
Potentially fatal consequences now await any fire crew engaged in extinguishing simple office fires. The collapse of WTC7 was so sudden and so swift, no firefighter could escape such disintegration in time to avoid certain burial within the debris.
The Investigation
Despite the shocking implications that a steel-framed building could now fall into its own footprint at such speed and into only a few piles of rubble, NIST’s explanation for refusing to release their input data remains ‘Reasons of Public Safety’. If that statement is to be taken seriously, it then begs the question ‘What about a fire crew’s’ safety�???
Maxwell appeared on camera for less than three minutes when he aired his views during INCONTROVERTIBLE. Brian comments in the film:
“We now have a major problem world-wide with buildings that are built in a similar nature.”
For that brief interview, and for circulating DVD�s of the documentary to fellow firefighters, police and military, he was placed under a formal investigation by his employers and found guilty of bringing the SFRS into ‘serious disrepute’. Maxwell was also charged with ‘operating outside the parameters of his employers code of conduct’.
Yet many former employees of US and UK Emergency Services also expressed their anxiety about the collapse of the building and the inevitably grave repercussions that could unfold should this risk remain unpublicised and adequate measures not taken immediately.
The fact that WTC7 is SO unheard of is suspicious in itself.
A February 2016 US YouGov Poll found that a stunning 49% of those who had actually seen WTC 7 collapse doubted the official report, with 27% unsure, and only 24% content to agree with the NIST account.
Hertfordshire Firefighter of nine years, Adrian Mallett, echoed Maxwell’s observations in the film:
“It changes completely how you’re going to fight high-rise fires. It’s the only steel-framed building in history to have collapsed from fire alone – all of the others have stayed up. We’ve had partial collapse, little bits have fallen off, but we’ve never had an entire building go from 47 storeys into a 3 storey pile of rubble in a few seconds. So every procedure for fighting high rise fires is going to have to change. For architects and building engineers it’s going to have to change, because now, apparently, according to NIST, the unspoken acceptance that a fire can’t burn hot enough to bring down a steel-frame, this can now happen”.
Questions
The film also questions the integrity of the NIST Official report of 2008, which has now been found to be riddled with either manipulation and scientific fraud. Possibly the most disturbing element of NIST’s ineptitude or outright criminality, was their failure to recognise that WTC7 fell at free-fall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds of its descent. It took a US High School Physics teacher to point out this elementary measurement, not to mention the dark implications of a building losing ALL its structural support for over 100 feet and all at the same instant.
Writer/Director of INCONTROVERTIBLE Tony Rooke commented:
“Many of the people who funded the film are or were firefighters and coppers. There are now around 2,500 architects and engineers petitioning for a new investigation. In the documentary we highlight numerous pieces of evidence demonstrating that NIST’s working data has been fudged and suppressed. I think anyone watching that building fall will have immediate concerns about the sheer speed and nature of its collapse. Even if we take the US authorities’ word for everything, we must then consider that any response to a 911 call in America since 2001 could now end in a preventable catastrophe. Another unexpected and total structural failure to my mind, would be murder by neglect because we�ve been told it’s possible, so new measures to prevent it being possible should at latest have been outlined and initiated in 2008. The same must apply here [the UK] and elsewhere.”
“All Brian Maxwell has done is highlight an official investigation�s conclusion which presents a real and present danger to every fire crew fighting similar fires in similar buildings but one which is very, VERY disturbing if proven false. This issue requires immediate action or lives will be lost. Sadly, the obvious questions have been muted by our mainstream media. At best, it’s possibly because of the extreme costs to Government agencies and influential figures owning our larger buildings, who are now candidates for the massive bill of what should be compulsory upgrading of fire insulation or even complete rebuilds. At worst, we’re looking at an insurance scam or some unknown motive which shows foreknowledge of the event.”
“Either way, we’re seeing total inaction by our fire authorities at senior level. However you look at it – a fire crew’s welfare would appear pretty bloody unimportant right now. I’d down tools and strike but it has to be done in numbers. I’m surprised more firefighters don’t have the same bottle or integrity as Brian Maxwell, but I guess they simply don’t know about it and that’s the problem we�re dealing with, or, maybe 343 dead colleagues simply isn’t enough for some people to do something.�
Maxwell concludes:
“I was in a position that my conscience found untenable. I have a moral obligation and duty of professional care to promote the issues highlighted by the INCONTROVERTIBLE documentary. The SFRS organisation has severely limited my capacity to do the right thing for the right reasons. It is because of this that I find the SFRS guilty of wilful ignorance and bringing itself into serious disrepute with reality!”
A Call to Action
“It’s my sincere hope that the steps I have taken will in some way be recognised as a wake up call to those still serving in a uniformed discipline that have never considered that you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Your children and grand children’s futures depend on your actions or lack of here and now.”
The documentary INCONTROVERTIBLE featuring Brian Maxwell can be seen for free on youtube or purchased on DVD on the home page.
Advice for Firefighters concerned about this issue can be obtained upon request from: [email protected]
Killing Auntie Films – [email protected]
INCONTROVERTIBLE :: Brian Maxwell resigns :: Contact us :: Privacy policy :: Website map
I forgot to put link where ‘Incontrovertible 911 Evidence’ can be watched:
http://www.incontrovertible911evidence.co.uk/
Clarke, reading Peter Dale Scott I get where your coming from. Scott doesn’t reach the usual conspiracy suspect conclusions on JFK because he follow facts as he sees them even if his findings don’t then support his broad brush view on the start of deep state and COG theories as conveniently as the usual suspects would. It doesn’t put him off and he works on detail and broad brush.
People only like to hear what accords with their view. Even those, who claim to be awake, or perhaps especially those because they have often been through a struggle to arrive at views, which do not accord with yours. So you get resistance from all sides. Such is life.