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).
The physicist Richard Feynman tells a story in one of his books (sorry, forget which) about measurement of a physical quantity. He has a graph of the historical values of this quantity, a curve descending gradually over decades, arriving eventually at what is now accepted as the ‘correct value’, insofar as modern physics entertains such quaint notions.
His point? The first investigator to make the measurement got it badly wrong – but he was highly reputable. Subsequent investigators always found the correct answer, but were so shocked by its divergence from the accepted value that they edited and re-edited their analyses to arrive at a roughly similar figure. Hence over time we see that continuous, elegant curve towards the truth, not a sharp step-change from error to correction.
I mention this because discussion of 9/11 seems even more cursed with prior expectation, but without hope of a gradual progression to consensus. When I eavesdrop on 9/11 conversations, I categorise the protagonists:
(a) The government of the United States of America would not murder three thousand of its own citizens in order to provide an excuse for war in the Middle East. Suggestions that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ are therefore absurd.
(b) Everything, however awful, is true.
(c) (b) is wrong, but I’m not sure about (a)….
It’s all a bit Bayesian- prior assumptions should not occlude evidence. But in real life they always do.
(a) is hilarious, given the documented experiments of US civilians and military over the years, many involving the deaths of the hapless unwitting ‘humanguine pigs’, as well as engineered wars such as WWI and WWII (Lusitania; Pearl Harbour); Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin LIE’); iraq (Saddam ‘induced’ to invade Kuwait) and so on.
But (a) is not really hilarious as in ‘funny’, because of the horrendous loss of lives on all sides.
Classic exercise in Truther logic. “I believe in conspiracy theory A because I also believe in theories B, C, D, etc.”
It all collapses at free fall speed into it’s own footprint when you remember that the same people who were executing these incredibly complex plots were the same people who were unable to make a convincing case for the Iraq war. Compared to staging 9/11 planting few WMDs in Iraq should’ve been child’s play.
“Compared to staging 9/11 planting few WMDs in Iraq should’ve been child’s play.”
Indeed. We all knew that none were there, but I am still puzzled that none were ‘found’.
Before you pounce, I consider ‘none was’ pedantic. Try it out in the above sentence and you might agree.
Hi Kempe.
You might like to pass this information on to the 9-11 Truther’s:
https://cultureandpolitics.org/2016/03/30/911/
FYI for any interested parties:
9/11 Film Festival to be Live Streamed Online Sept. 8th
Thursday, Sept. 8th at 1:00 PM Pacific * 4:00 PM Eastern * 20:00 GMT
SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
Graeme MacQueen, PhD — Author of “The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy”, steering committee member of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, and a co-editor of “The Journal of 9/11 Studies.”
Tony Rooke —- Producer of the film “Incontrovertible,” which documents his refusal in the British courts to pay fees that support “terrorism.”
John Meaders — Highly honored CHP police officer calling for a real investigation into 9/11.
Charles Ewing Smith — Producer of the documentary “The Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11,” which examines the psychological impact of 9/11, individually and collectively, and the healing process.
FILMS INCLUDE:
Incontrovertable
9/11: Decade of Deception
Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11
ALSO SPEAKING:
Mistress of Ceremonies: Bonnie Faulkner
Attorney William Veale
Project Censored: Peter Phillips & Mickey Huff
More details at: http://noliesradio.org/archives/118947
Ah yes Tony Rooke. Taken to court for not paying his TV licence, made to pay £200 costs, his video “evidence” ruled irrelevant and given a conditional discharge; that is told to go and get a TV licence or face further prosecution. He caved in and bought himself a licence the following day.
Yet the “Truth” movement would have you believe he won some kind of landmark victory!
Another example of how they distort facts.
@ Kempe August 25, 2016 at 11:12
‘Ah yes Tony Rooke. Taken to court for not paying his TV licence, made to pay £200 costs, his video “evidence” ruled irrelevant and given a conditional discharge; that is told to go and get a TV licence or face further prosecution. He caved in and bought himself a licence the following day.
Yet the “Truth” movement would have you believe he won some kind of landmark victory!
Another example of how they distort facts.’
Indeed? Looks to me YOU are distorting the facts. You didn’t say WHY Tony Rooke was refusing to get a licence; though the Magistrate was given the evidence for Tony’s case that the BBC were complicit in assisting terrorism, and therefore he was obliged not to help fund them, the Magistrate was unable to allow the evidence, as he was governed by the strict law that stated if one watches live broadcasts in the UK one is obliged to have a TV Licence (unless one is 75 or over).
At least the ‘Daily Mail’ has more integrity than you (not too difficult, but surprising all the same); they give the context, and even have a nice picture of the aftermath of the judgement:
TV licence evader refused to pay because the ‘BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
AND the prosecuting attorney chipped in to help pay the costs! Says bundles about the justice of Tony’s stance.
And ‘He caved in and bought himself a licence the following day’ – are you quite sure? Any evidence?
No, again you are typing made-up bs as fact.
Rooke’s excuse for not having a TV licence is irrelevant. He has a TV, he’s not over 75, he needs a licence.
He was given the conditional discharge in 2013 and hasn’t been dragged back to court. He must therefore have bought a licence.
His reason for not having a licence is very important, though irrelevant to you, and the Magistrate was unable to take his reasons into consideration from a strict legal viewpoint. But his leniency shows it was taken into consideration in his judgement.
‘..He has a TV, he’s not over 75, he needs a licence…’ WRONG. You can have as many TV’s as you like, and as long as you don’t watch live TV on them, no need for a licence.
‘..He was given the conditional discharge in 2013 and hasn’t been dragged back to court. He must therefore have bought a licence.’ WRONG AGAIN – how do you know he hasn’t been taken back to court? AND WRONG AGAIN: you ASSUME he has bought a licence; there is no MUST about it. And you were so cock-sure – ‘He went out the next day and bought one’.
GOTCHA, as the Sun might say….
Do they dock your payments when you screw up so abysmally??
An old saying just popped into my head: ‘Pay peanuts, get monkeys’.
” You can have as many TV’s as you like, and as long as you don’t watch live TV on them, no need for a licence ”
Nitpicking.
“.He was given the conditional discharge in 2013 and hasn’t been dragged back to court. He must therefore have bought a licence.’ WRONG AGAIN – how do you know he hasn’t been taken back to court? ”
Quite easily; because it would be all over every looney tune 9/11 conspiracy website, every cause loves a martyr, and it isn’t. Bear in mind that if he was brought back to court having failed to get a licence when instructed he’d be in contempt of court which carries heavy fines and even imprisonment.
We’d have heard about it sure enough but if you think otherwise please find some evidence.
I wouldn’t have said he was let of lightly judging by this.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases
Sorry to disappoint but I don’t get paid to do this, I do it for my own amusement.
Kempe you make stuff up in your own head that suits your trolling agenda. Who cares whether Tony Rooke has a tv licence or not. He has put his head above the parapet for the good of truth and justice. What have you done lately?
@ Kempe August 26, 2016 at 04:11
You would know, because you assiduously follow ‘every looney tune 9/11 conspiracy website’ ‘for your own amusemrnt’ – what a sorry apology for a human being!
So you admit to not knowing sweet FA (not ‘Football Association’) about whether he rushed out the following day to buy a licence, having ‘caved in’, but just made an ‘assumption’. TTry to distinguish between ‘assumptions’ and ‘facts’, if you can!
And you know sooo much about ‘Looney 9/11 websites’, do you? You don’t appear to know there has been a rolling program of deliberate non-payment; I have refused myself since mid-2013, and I assure you I’m not posting this from Pentonville or Wandsworth.
So you don’t think he was treated leniently, given fines of £1,000 are leviable? And this was for deliberate refusal to pay, not financial problems, and he didn’t get a fine at all? I wonder what Alice would make of you?
I’m surprised you even have a TV set, surely a hardline Truther wouldn’t want to expose themselves to the MSM and risk exposure to rationality and science.
Were you ever given a six month conditional discharge? Rooke was, that is get a licence withing six months or appear back in court. Rooke caved in; get over it.
Important article published in EurophysicsNews which describes itself as “the magazine of the European Physical Society”.
15 YEARS LATER: ON THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES
On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.
-By Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter
See the magazine’s PDF page 21 (I found it at page 23 in my Adobe reader) at:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However,given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
This is a very significant and brave decision from the editors of EurophysicsNews, a magazine which is actually owned by the European Physical Society.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/about-the-journal
The European Physical Society represents nearly every National Physics Society in Europe (but not the UK).
http://www.eps.org/?page=membership
Despite the disclaimer of the editors, publication in this magazine invests huge authority in the scientific arguments of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It just got harder to mock the credibility of demolition theories.
Any comment, Kempe?
It’s more likely to damage the credibility of the magazine than enhance that of AE911.
The disclaimer is important as it distances the editors from the views of the authors. It’s the only article in that issue or indeed any of the back issues I’ve looked at online where the editors feel they need to do this. It’ll be interesting to read the letters column in the next couple of issues as the real experts get their claws into the article and rip it apart; and they will. That may of course have been the very reason the article has been published but even the most prestigious of publications cock-up from time to time. The Lancet and Dr Andrew Wakefield springing most readily to mind; but then you probably believe that too.
You have heard that CDC chap in the USA (Williams ?) admit that autism/MMR stats were ‘cooked’, and that Wakefield was correct all along ?
William Thompson.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
Classic example of selective quotation.
The disclaimer is important ….
The disclaimer is a formality. The important thing is that the most prestigious Physics organisation in Europe allowed its house magazine to publish this. This decision wasn’t left to a sub editor. We can be certain that the entire board of the European Physical Society and the entire editorial staff of Europhysics News discussed it long and hard, all of them fully aware of the implications and possible repercussions of their decision, and then decided to publish and be damned.
The tide is turning, Kempe. Fifteen years after 911, the event is entering history. In 2002 it was career suicide for a scientist to question the official narrative. But governments have changed and dissent is becoming mainstream. Very soon, support for the discredited science behind the official narrative will diminish a scientist in his colleagues’ eyes. The smart scientists can see this coming and are positioning themselves accordingly. This is the first crack in the academic dam. Watch it turn into a flood.
In five years time, the European Physical Society and its magazine will reap the rewards for their bravery. They will justly claim they put science above politics. They will receive respect for giving a voice to the truth while their American counterpart remained muzzled.
And you, Kempe? Will you stick with the fairy story while the scientific establishment mock you, when you’re the one with the tin foil hat? Will you?
I will stick with the science, yes. As I say we’ve yet to see the readers reaction to this article.
Problem is the Truth movement doesn’t really want dissent to become mainstream, whilst Truthers have the delusion of possessing knowledge and understanding not shared by the majority “sheeple” it makes them feel important, gives them a sense of self esteem they wouldn’t normally have. If what is today considered a conspiracy theory over 9/11 (the central problem being which one, thermite, mini-nukes, DEW etc) becomes accepted tomorrow the Truth movement will probably switch to supporting the NIST report.
I will stick with the science, yes
By which you presumably mean “mainstream scientific opinion.” Well, publication of ‘Truther’ theories in the most prestigious physics journal in Europe indicates that mainstream scientific opinion is undergoing a sea change on 911 which may leave your present theories high and dry. Will you still stick to them then?
Please address my point that the decision to publish must have been taken at the highest level after careful consideration of the implications and repercussions. The carefully worded disclaimer describes the article as being “sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers.” The European Physical Society is knowingly staking its credibility on this matter. This is a position statement.
” Physical Society is knowingly staking its credibility on this matter ”
A decision I think it may come to regret.
The decision to publish probably also reflects the diminishing power of the U.S. government on the world stage.
Node, you don’t seem the least bit interested in discussing the collapses; you just want to promote demolition theories.
Kempe, hard luck. You’re so pedantic about TV licenses that you must be part of the conspiracy. But at least you’re not a car park officer with radio, Maglite and mirror shades; they’re the worst.
The magistrate may have been minded by the fact, if paying for a TV licence promotes terrorism, then enforcing payment of the TV licence promotes terrorism too. The magistrate may have refused to hear the evidence in court, but as s/he was aware of the evidence s/he is required to report the information.
So enforcing payment and not informing the relevant authority about the discovery of terrorist activity at the BBC makes him/her twice guilty of promoting terrorism by omission and design.
Ah well, just so long as we don’t discuss Wahabbism, its use for projecting Saudi power, ongoing US exploitation thereof, its relevance to more recent acts of mindless violence and the convenience of all this to the preferred narrative of the ‘security states’ generally and the neocon-Israeli axis in particular. We wouldn’t want to stray on-topic.
You’ll have great difficulty proving that the buildings didn’t just collapse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law
But never mind me. I just want the violence to stop.
You’re a card, Clarke
A REAL, as opposed to a pseudo, expert:
‘NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The “Elephant In The Room”
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178
06/22/2010 – (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.
Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth – “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”.
Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:
A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service – retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click “Who is Ethically Responsible” submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.
Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
– Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the “Elephant In The Room” and needs to be thoroughly investigated.
For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.
To view the scene from “9/11: World Trade Center Attack” analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.
For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of “Hijacker” pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more… please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”.
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
A quick change of subject.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth use the crash of EA 990 as their “benchmark” claiming that this aircraft underwent structural failure as it descended through 22,000ft at 0.99 Mach. This is just simply untrue. EA990’s transponders failed at that altitude through lack of power as both engines had been shut down. The aircraft itself continued down to 17,000ft and climbed back up to 25,000ft before making it’s final dive. It remained intact until impact.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-pilots-for-9-11-truth-wtc-speeds.t2942/
Their whole argument is built upon a lie.
I see; that’s why there were two distinct debris fields. And all these highly experienced pilots have it wrong, whereas your ‘Mike West & Co.’ have the truth.
Just take a look at Deet’s credentials; then try to find West’s.
Why won’t the various government agencies respond to Pilots For 9/11 Truth’s very relevant questions? Because they know damn well they are telling a pack of lies, just as governments and their agencies do, all the time.
The left engine and some other small pieces may have detached just before impact and were found 370m from the rest of the wreckage. Had the aircraft broken up at 22,000ft there wouldn’t be two debris fields so close together but one big one covering an area of several square miles. This fact can be easily checked from the same source Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim to have used.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAB0201.pdf
Page 55.
I suspect the NTSB won’t respond to “Pilots” because they know it’ll be a waste of time, “Pilots” clearly haven’t read the report of if they did deliberately chose to ignore or distort it. Read the NTSB report, which was also the work of some highly experienced pilots, and ask yourself why.
Kempe, you are a waste of space – ‘….It remained intact until impact’ @ August 31, 2016 at 01:00′
‘ ..The left engine and some other small pieces may have detached just before impact and were found 370m from the rest of the wreckage….’ @ August 31, 2016 at 09:17
What happened, you slept on it, then had a revelation in the morning?
I saw absolutely nothing about Pilots For 9/11 Truth saying it broke up at 22,000 ft.; I did see they say it attained it’s maximum speed at that height.
And the bottom line is, they ALL say ‘the claimed speeds of the Boeings which were ‘reported’ as hitting the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon, were all IMPOSSIBLE. What part of ‘impossible’ don’t you understand?
Do you dispute their competence to make such a statement?
It’s not only the government agencies which will not reply to their queries, it is also the plane manufacturers.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
Paragraph 4, EA990 suffered structural failure shortly after achieving peak speed.
Paragraph 2. EA990 achieved a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000ft.
How much clearer do you want it?
NASA flight director ? expert ?? Is that all you got, Paul ? 🙂
No wonder the change of subject …
@ John August 31, 2016 at 15:16
‘NASA flight director ? expert ?? Is that all you got, Paul ?’
There is a long list of his appointments above, but I will humour you, and repeat it:
Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
– Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
So no, ‘NASA Flight Director’ isn’t all i got, or indeed, all I presented in my above comment:
Shall we go over it again?:
‘Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
– Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career’.
And such a guy sticks his neck out and opposes the government lies…pity there aren’t a lot more like him.
And don’t forget all the other ‘Pilots For 9/11 Truth’, with totals of many tens of thousands of hours experience flying Boeings and other airliners.
I am sold on the point that whatever hit the towers at those speeds were not standard planes, with dodgy pilots. But when I try to think of the idea of a NASA executive with honesty and integrity I can’t help wondering what he thinks of fake moon landings…
Why don’t you simply ask him?
Was trying (and obviously failing) to point out the quality of your source. Must try harder …
Clarke, I have been catching up reading some of your posts here. Bitter Lake the film, which says something about that FDR /Saud meeting and agreement on the lake has been available on the iplayer for over a year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake
More info on the activities planned for NYC around the 15th anniversary of 9/11:
9/11 Truth Activists and Researchers Prepare for the 15th Anniversary
By Derrick Broze
(big snip)
Speakers and panel discussions will include:
Keynote speaker: Renowned public interest attorney Daniel Sheehan, who litigated cases related to the Pentagon Papers and the Iran/Contra Affair;
Keynote speaker: Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy;
A team of accomplished lawyers who will hear evidence related to the World Trade Center’s destruction and consider future legal strategies for obtaining 9/11 Justice;
Richard Gage, AIA, who will discuss the current activities of AE911Truth, and Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, who will present the findings-to-date of the WTC 7 computer modeling study, which he is conducting at the University of Alaska Fairbanks;
Roundtable discussions featuring Wayne Madsen, J. Michael Springmann, and other prominent experts;
The launch of 9/11 Truth Action Project (9/11 TAP) by founding members of this new international organization; and,
Masters of Ceremonies Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU (Saturday), and renowned International Human Rights attorney William Pepper (Sunday).
For more info on the whole weekend of events and to learn how to get involved, check out http://www.groundzero911.com
Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/911-truth-activists-and-researchers-prepare-for-the-15th-anniversary.html
Should be an interesting event, sorry I won’t be able to make it.
Dr Judy Woods not invited?
Madsen and Springmann both accept the hijackers were real, how does this tie in with Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the claims of other Truthers in the “no planes” camp?
Anyway with so many prominent Truthers in one place wouldn’t it be an ideal opportunity for another “false flag” by those nasty lizards?
But then you’d have to find a new income….
Here are just a few examples from the timeline mentioned above:
Source: http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11-facts
New video posted to Youtube (33min) Beyond the 28 Pages – What A Real 9/11 Investigation Would Reveal :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6VUpSgx9Q
15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
pdf.:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
“How I became a 9/11 ‘truther’” by the Saker:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/05/how-i-became-a-911-truther/
Good to see Off-guardian taking on this subject.
Two good articles already.
I think this kind of integrity is needed, means more than Craig Murray’s 600 words of ‘I don’t believe’ (what about the evidence?); ‘someone would have blabbed’ (people DID talk, what about compartmentalisation and plausible deniability?); or ‘those buildings were probably shoddy’ (speculation without evidence).
Saker showing his usual ignorance.
NIST never rejected progressive collapse. Clearly like most Truthers he’s never read the NIST report and just relied on selective quotations on 9/11 conspiracy websites for his opinion. This is a quote from the NIST report:-
“The core columns were weakened significantly by the aircraft impact damage and thermal effects. Thermal effects dominated the weakening of WTC 1. As the fires moved from the north to the south side of the core, the core was weakened over time by significant creep strains on the south side of the core. Aircraft impact damage dominated the weakening of WTC 2. With the impact damage, the core subsystem leaned to the southeast and was supported by the south and east perimeter walls via the hat truss and floors. As the core weakened, it redistributed loads to the perimeter walls through the hat truss and floors. Additional axial loads redistributed to the exterior columns from the core were not significant (only about 20 percent to 25 percent on average) as the exterior columns were loaded to approximately 20 percent of their capacity before the aircraft impact.
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns (south face of WTC 1; east face of WTC 2). Sagging floors continued to support floor loads as they pulled inward on the perimeter columns. There would have been no inward pull forces if the floors connections had failed and disconnected.
Column buckling over an extended region of the perimeter face ultimately triggered the global system collapse as the loads could not be redistributed through the hat truss to the already weakened building core. As the exterior wall buckled (south face for WTC 1 and east face for WTC 2), the column instability propagated to adjacent faces and caused the initiation of the building collapse. Perimeter wall buckling was induced by a combination of thermal weakening of the columns, inward pull forces from sagging floors, and to a much lesser degree, additional axial loads redistributed from the core.”
What they’re saying is that failure of the supporting columns through buckling initiated the collapse not failure of the floor connections.
Love the way he goes on about “hundreds of tons of explosives” then talks about thermite! Classic.
No, Kempe, he is right.
The official theory advanced by the investigating authorities fundamentally changed. Follow the links:
http://911blogger.com/news/2006-09-30/nist-officially-kills-pancake-theory-most-worlds-structural-engineers-scurry-defend-latest-official-bunk
The documentaries for public consumption (NOVA) clearly layed out a progressive collapse (pancake theory) that was abandoned in favour of the eventual reference to Bazant’s ‘Pile Driver’ theory.
It doesn’t matter if the theory fundamentally changed. They changed their conclusions on the basis of new evidence, that’s science. How many Truthers have ever done that? The fact is they’re not ruling out a progressive collapse but the initial cause of the global failure. It wasn’t the failure of the floors but failure of the supporting columns. Read what it says.
Further from the NIST report:-
“The bowed south wall columns buckled and were unable to carry the gravity loads. Those loads shifted to the adjacent columns via the spandrels, but those columns quickly became overloaded as well. In rapid sequence, this instability spread all the way to the east and west walls.
The section of the building above the impact zone (near the 98th floor), acting as a rigid block, tilted at least 8 degrees to the south.
The downward movement of this structural block was more than the damaged structure could resist, and global collapse began.”
Those scientists who contest it do think that it matters that the model of collapse changed.
Buildings (admittedly not high rise steel framed buildings) have collapsed progressively through a ‘pancaking’ of floors one on top of the other. The pile driver hypothesis that is put forward by Bazant et al has no precedent.
Saker is right that most people still refer to the ‘pancaking’ effect as the reason the towers came all the way down as this was promoted in the years immediately after the event. Similarly the initial assertion that steel ‘melted’ (i.e. liquefied) was widely asserted as is now admitted by all to be bunk.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
No time for anything else.
Oh for fuck’s sake. There are unimaginably vast numbers of ways for +any+ structure to collapse or fail, and only one way for it to not fail. Someone remember the laws of thermodynamics for fuck’s sake.
The chances of NIST or anyone else reconstructing the failures with complete accuracy are therefore also unimaginably remote, but that doesn’t matter in the slightest. They only had to show that the observed collapses were broadly possible, which they did.
Look, if piles of rubble were to erect themselves into buildings, that would be exceedingly suspicious and require explanation. Preventing the reverse from happening is the major part of learning how to build.
Photo-op and Demo opposite US Embassy 2.30pm Sunday September 11, 2016.
This will be an opportunity for you to pick up leaflets for future use. 9/11 victim’s brother Matt plans to come down some time after 3.00
5 years and three wars later…now tell us the truth on 9/11
reinvestigate911.org
Hope some of you come and join us – it won’t be a large demo, unfortunately.
And it’s a good opportunity to get your photos in CIA, Mossad, Mi5/6 and Special Branch files! Join the ‘Red List’, for ‘Special Treatment’ come Martial Law!
” it won’t be a large demo ”
No risk of the NHS running out of straight-jackets then?
@Kempe
Can I suggest that you change tack in your constant reference to ‘Truthers’ as if they are a breed apart. When you make quips about staright jackets, and I think of the people with mental health issues that I used to work with, I sigh and think how bigotry undermines your position.
From “The Saker’s” article above.
“..there are real crackpots and kooks within the 9/11 Truth movement “
@ mog – It’s not really ‘Truthers’ Kempe doesn’t like, it’s Truth itself that bugs him.
So, unable to demolish Truth, he attempts to shoot the messengers. Luckily for the messengers, his aim is as warped and crooked as his purported opinions.
The problem you have is that Truthers can’t agree amongst themselves on just what The Truth is. Thermite, high explosives, cruise missiles, mini-nukes or ray guns? Just how many versions of The Truth can there be? It’s not enough to take the timid, non-commital way out and simply denounce the official version.
Kempe, 5.33, Your motivation for that comment is highly suspicious. You are actually trying to ridicule individuals who commonly all have difficulty with the beardy-guy-in-a-cave theory, because they have differing views on some of the details of what actually happened.
Why would individuals have the same views when by definition there is an imperfect information flow?
For people interested in the truth, the understanding on the details will converge soon enough. For all that the details matter compared to the implications of the bigger picture.
@kempe
I would not endorse Saker’s view either. In situations where we have not been told the truth about something important and controversial, people are sometimes confused, sometimes let imagination and suspicion too long a leash at the expense of reason. There are genuine eccentrics out there in the world. None of that means that these people CANNOT reason, none of it means that they are mentally ill. Labelling people who disagree with you as ‘mad’ has a very dark history in totalitarian regimes of the past and present.
Actually, if you make an honest study of the opinions of professional associations, the academics and experts who have spoken out about 911, there is a remarkable degree of agreement about what needs answering, what likely happened and what needs further investigation. If you pull out fringe theories and fringe theorists as typical examples of ‘Truthers can’t agree amongst themselves’, then the dishonesty is obvious to anyone who researches the subject in earnest.
More fundamentally, the ‘Truth Movement’ is not primarily about making a claim on truth, rather about SEEKING truth about 911- truth that even the commissioners of the 911 Commission admitt we have not been told.
The people who DO arguably need restraining are the neocon psychopaths whose version of the 911 events you uncritically accept as fact.
Well we know the beardy guy didn’t live in a cave for long and anyway the attack was planned in Hamburg which the last time I looked was a fairly advanced area with good facilities and communications.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2349195.stm
We can sit here and call each other bonkers until the cows come home the fact is it’s the Truthers who (wilfully?) reject science and support increasingly bizarre and impossible scenarios.
Kempe, But you did it again tarring all “truthers” with the same brush. As for impossible scenarios, it’s the big official impossible scenario that started it
@Kempe
I’m afraid I cannot let you have the last word on this particular thread; at least nor with a dismissive wave of the hand and a lame argument of false equivalence.
We know that the group of Neoconservative political actors, centred in Washington, are pathological liars- that much is only disputed by those in deep denial. They have openly expressed, in many places, their vision of transforming the world through aggressive war, and we know that they have utilized the machinery of deception to enact their stated plans over the past 15 years. The Zelikow’s, Kagan’s, Kristol’s, Wolfowitz’s, Cheney’s, Rumsfeld’s of this world are arguably just as psychopathically deranged as the National Socialists of 1930’s Germany.
In contrast, the researchers who have led the work trying to highlight, probe and answer some of the many questions that the official investigations into 911 left unanswered (S Jones, D Griffin, N Harrit, K Ryan, D Hopsicker, P Thompson, P Scott, N Ahmed et al.) are not ‘mad’- are none of them even eccentric by most people’s standards. They are simply professionals and academics; people of conscience, who have done some honest and daring work.
I respect anyone who disagrees with the latter group’s opinions and statements, and I would not consider their mental capabilities in any different light for the disagreement. However, it is fruitless to repeatedly rely upon ad hominem arguments to make your case, and unforgivable if such an attack comes from someone who believes- without reservation, an untested official account which was concocted by the former mentioned group of ideologically driven liars. If you are really interested in truth then just accept that and argue the points of evidence, I say.
Consider this, that the recently released ‘28 pages’ clearly indicate that one of the president’s closest personal friends, a guy who regularly visited for dinner, who went on fishing trips with ‘W’, one of the first foreign officials to visit the White House after the attacks, Prince Bandar, was sending funds to the alleged terrorists. This was covered up for 15 years. Show some civility and respect for some of the advocates for truth who have campaigned so long to get those 28 pages (and other classified documents) released for public scrutiny. Show just enough humility to accept that we do not have the full story of 911 and that we really should.
Does not the ‘28 pages’ stir any suspicion in you that the 911 Commission Report might have failed to include other highly relevant information? Is it really irrational to link in our thinking, these facts about Bandar with the observation that the president, on hearing that the disaster was unfolding, made no response whatsoever for many minutes? Or that the Bush administration went to extreme lengths to delay and hamper the investigations afterwards? If you haven’t read them already, try reading Kean and Hamilton’s book, or John Farmer’s, or David Ray Griffin’s ‘Omissions and Distortions’.
(NB When I heard of the first plane strike I stopped work and went and turned on the TV; so in fact even I did more that George W Bush for those long minutes. The same could be said of Rumsfeld and some others in the command structure- the country under attack and no response. Is there no problem in that for you?)
If anyone at least acknowledges that the 911 Commission Report is incomplete and therefore flawed, they are surely morally obliged to join the calls for a genuinely independent and full investigation? Is that not, in truth, called ‘being a Truther’?
Still, one of the worst threads you have ever started, Craig, making out the it was not some kind of plot when it was a CIA counter ploy which went terribly wrong because it was misconstrued to start with.
It didn’t go ‘terribly wrong’ from the start – it went spot according to plan – just as their ‘mistakes’ in Iraq, the ‘unforeseen consequences’ in Libya, and so forth ‘worked out’ remarkably well for them.
They are not incompetent, just immensely evil. IS, Al-CIA-dah and associates are STILL doing the West’s bidding – check out the ‘Yinon Plan’.
I do not for a moment think the NWO socio/psychopaths are running out of steam; I wish they were, but they ain’t.
And they are doing their evil all around the world, at the same time – Afghanistan, Iraq, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, USA, Greece, Europe – they are forging ahead.
Its true the twin towers collapsed into their own footprint denoting controlled demolition, but unless observed the term collapse has a misleading innocence, because unless observed collapse can sound less incredible than what actually happened. That is, the towers never ‘simply’ collapsed but literally disintegrated into dust. Reinforced concrete and steel disintegrating, not at free fall speed, because it wasn’t falling, but progressively disintegrating at an even speed from top to bottom. I.e. viewing the collapse/disintegration is the evidence of controlled demolition with criminal/scientific investigation providing the evidence for what can be plainly seen.
Sorry but that’s nonsense. Watch the collapse videos more closely while fully considering the great reduction in scale. Look at the aftermath photos in the highest resolution you can find. Things you have written are in contradiction with clear facts.
A list of 9/11 known knowns (as Rummy would have said) is being compiled on the website of Russ Baker, the investigative journalist who wrote the book Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years.
Here is a short excerpt:
9/11’s Known Knowns
With the debate over 9/11 heating up as the 15th anniversary of that fateful day draws near, it’s a good time to get back up to speed. WhoWhatWhy believes there are essential pillars of the 9/11 debate that must be acknowledged by all parties before any healthy discussion of that paradigm-changing topic can take place.
What follows is a refresher list of “known knowns” — select, broad aspects of 9/11 that are at present beyond reasonable doubt:
• The money trail was never followed to its logical conclusion. The 9/11 Commission concluded the question of who funded the attacks “was of little practical significance.”
• The Bush White House pushed back against any independent investigation into 9/11.
• Once the White House agreed to an independent investigation, it provided a budget of $3 million, or 27% of the amount requested by 9/11 Commission co-chairs, Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton.
More at: http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/09/08/911s-known-knowns/ (and also continued in the comments)
In other developments, just in time for the 9/11 anniversary, AE911 Truth has mailed out a 14 page summary of the problems they found with the NIST reports on the 9/11 WTC building collapses to 35,000 US engineers holding senior positions in government, business and academia. The report titled WORLD TRADE CENTER PHYSICS Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse is along the same lines as the report On the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses published recently in the journal EurophysicsNews. However, this report is somewhat more technical in that it gets into working through the engineering equations and formulas to make their point in a presentation that is geared to engineering professionals.
Hard copies of the report can be purchased from the AE911Truth web site for $10 each plus postage, and free downloads are also available at the link posted below. They do require you to leave a name with an address (plus email address) to access the download, and they request a $2 donation to cover their cost, but the donation is voluntary. Even if you do not want to download the report, it’s worthwhile to go to the link to checkout the big advertising poster they have installed for the month of September right across the street from the NY Times, LOL : http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=669d25a1b1&e=%5BUNIQID%5D
The building is exploding into dust, clouds of it, and you say look more closely. You’re a card, Clarke!
No, the buildings are not seen to explode. Look more carefully. Hardly any material is seen to be ejected with an inclination above the horizontal, as would be expected if driven by explosive blasts. Large sections of structure are seen to fall away from the Twin Towers; such sections trail and/or disturb dust as they go. The dust hangs and billows in the air. No shock waves are seen progressing through the dust clouds. At the largest scale, nearly all material that progresses away from the Towers does so falling, in parabolic arcs declining from the horizontal from their outset, none ascending as would be expected from explosives.
Looking closer, below the progressing collapse front is the only place where horizontal ejections can be seen, especially near the corners of the Towers. These are often claimed to be “squibs”, but they occur well ahead of the descending collapse front and thus cannot be initiating the fall of material. You have to visualise the dynamics of the collapse to understand the cause of these ejections (air displaced by falling rubble), but if all you’re looking for are explosives you won’t be able to. This happened most at the corners because that’s where the floor structures had least support.
In your comment you claimed that:
– “…the twin towers collapsed into their own footprint”
– “…the towers […] literally disintegrated into dust”
These claims are false – examine the aftermath photos. Dust was produced, as would be expected in a collapse (see verinage demolition, for instance), but so were vast quantities of rubble and twisted metal.
Another report on a Canadian engineering prof who has published two papers in a peer-reveiewed engineering journal disproving NIST’s WTC7 collapse theory:
Canadian Civil Engineering Researchers Disprove Official Explanation of WTC 7’s Destruction
by Mike Bondi, P.Eng.
Dr. Robert Korol, professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, has led a team of academic researchers in preparing two peer-reviewed scientific papers on the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7. Both papers were published in the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics — the first one in July 2015, the second in February 2016.
Prior to publishing these papers, the team of researchers carefully reviewed the work of Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, who had published a paper shortly after 9/11 focusing on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. Entitled “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” Bažant’s paper presented “a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.”
Noting the many shortcomings in Bažant’s analysis, which have been studied and criticized extensively since 2001, Korol and his colleagues set out to apply a much more rigorous methodology for analyzing WTC 7, which, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), collapsed from normal office fires. As Korol explains, “WTC 7 is a particularly useful example, because there isn’t the concern about trying to predict the amount of heat generated by spewing jet fuel and having it ignited within a building. It’s the materials within the building that generate the heat release.”
The greater certainty about the material properties involved would allow the team to evaluate whether WTC 7 could have collapsed as a result of burning materials being ejected from WTC 1 and igniting fires on the 12th and 13th floors. The team’s analysis eventually led them to conclude that even with very high estimates for the amount of combustible materials present in office buildings — using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes — and making many other generous assumptions, such as having two floors “totally ablaze with raging inferno fires,” WTC 7 still would not collapse. NIST could not have been correct in claiming that such a failure mechanism could have resulted in the collapse.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/275-news-media-events-canadian-civil-engineering-researchers-disprove-official-explanation-of-wtc-7-s-destruction.html
Again, trying to deny progressive collapse. If progressive collapse was impossible as Truthers claim then this sort of thing couldn’t happen:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Note; no explosive used just a couple of floors half way up the building pulled out of true using hydraulics.
Karol uses estimates of the amount of combustible materials in WTC based on building codes. As far as i can establish these codes refer to the fabric of the building, not the contents. How would it be enforced? Offices are chock full of wooden furniture, plastics and paper. He also claims a building will remain standing if two thirds of the supporting columns are removed. That might be true if two out every three columns were to be removed uniformly but far fewer adjacent columns would have to fail to initiate collapse. He strikes me as an either an academic with little or no practical experience or he’s having a laugh.
Not even close, so no cigar for you today.
Reflecting on the Verinage demolition method
Posted by dwheel39
I recently came across debunker vids on YouTube, such as this that boast of the Verinage demolition technique used to bring down buildings without explosives. According to Wikipedia, “The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse” . This is offered as a refutation to the 9/11 Truth claim that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, arguing that gravity alone can cause a symmetrical, freefall collapse without the use of explosives.
Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?
Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. (my emphasis /Silvio). Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/reflecting-on-verinage-demolition.html
Also see this video by physics teacher David Chandler in which he measures roofline acceleration/deceleration in a verinage demoltion comparing it to the roofline acceleration (with no deceleration at all) observed in the WTC tower collapses and explains the significance of this lack of decleration in the case of the WTC towers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
I’ll quote just the final sentence of Chandler’s What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like video:
– “At most, the top twelve floors might have destroyed an additional twelve floors, but the top section would have been consumed in the process, leaving nothing to crush the rest of the building”
Chandler apparently forgot the law of conservation of mass. Has he been fired from teaching physics? Because he should be, unless he’s published a retraction.
I’m glad I was taught physics by decent physics teachers. This stuff from Chandler is absolute rot. Chandler should know that he can’t apply forces and accelerations to buildings, with all their varied internal structure, as he would to blocks of amorphous material. He should know that his hammer-and-nail analogy is irrelevant, and that onto a fine enough nail, a big enough hammer would continue to accelerate under gravity. And above all he should know that smashing up a section of building does not result in “nothing”, but in an equal mass of falling rubble and wreckage.
Actually, his central argument is merely an appeal to incredulity – “It couldn’t have just collapsed!” – and the partisan “arguments” look sciency but aren’t science.
“no cigar for you today”
A good thing too I don’t smoke.
You have, wilfully I suspect, missed the real point which is that a gravity driven progressive collapse can totally destroy a building no matter how it is caused. Denial of this fact is core to Truther beliefs of controlled demolition so it’s not surprising there is so much sensitivity around it but you’ve now seen it with you own eyes.
Which brings us of course to Ronan Point and other classic examples but I suppose you’ll find somewhere from which to cut and paste some pseudo-science rebuttal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
I’ve downloaded and looked through the two papers by Robert Korol and others.
Performance-based fire protection of office buildings: A case study based on the collapse of WTC 7 seems a set of carefully targeted, rather detailed criticisms of NIST’s report of the collapse of Building 7; a paper designed to provoke some specific responses, while taking a side-swipe at NIST itself.
The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the “simple analysis” approach seems far more speculative and easily refuted, in that no reason is given to include complete pulverisation of concrete in the energy required for collapse.
Odd that the papers are so different. I’m still thinking them over but the first one seems the more serious.
Ken OKeefe Exposes 9-11-01 in 2016
I like him because he speaks plainly, he calls a spade a spade.
I like him because he’s eloquent, his message is clear.
And I like him because he is ANGRY, as we all should be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xcGL3zqNm0
Not like me to find myself here…
but just sometime..words from the Horses mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XV3Edd2dc
‘A Father’s Search for Truth Reveals Clues to a Controlled Demolition’:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/276-news-media-events-a-father-s-search-for-truth-reveals-clues-to-a-controlled-demolition.html
‘…..But McIlvaine is different from most of these families in important ways. In addition to his unwavering and often lonely fight to expose what he calls the complicity of the U.S. government in this false flag attack, he has strong forensic evidence proving that his 26-year-old son, Bobby, was killed by a powerful explosion as he was about to enter the lobby of the North Tower. That evidence is corroborated by the accounts of many FDNY members, police officers, and workers who reported that explosions went off in the lower parts of the towers before the buildings were leveled — some of them even before the first airplane struck.
In a recent interview, McIlvaine said that his son’s body was one of the first to be recovered and taken to the New York City morgue on that day. He explained that he has been able to reach more definitive conclusions about the details of his son’s death only since conferring, in either 2006 or 2007, with the doctor who had examined Bobby’s body at the morgue.
That meeting provided McIlvaine with evidence confirming that a huge explosion — and not the North Tower’s eventual demise — was responsible for killing his son. According to McIlvaine, the wounds described by the doctor indicated that his son had been hit by flying glass from some kind of gigantic blast. Bobby’s face was damaged beyond recognition, he had lacerations all over his chest from glass shards, and he had post-mortem burn marks. In fact, the blast was strong enough to literally blow Bobby out of his laced shoes (they were not on the body when it was brought to the morgue).
“My final summation is that he was walking into the building, and before he got into the building there was a huge explosion, and of course the force of it just threw him back into the open area,” McIlvaine says. “That’s why he was picked up so quickly, because the EMTs came down there so quickly. Someone had gotten him out of there and to the morgue before the towers came down.”…….’
Pick the bones out of that, Trolls!
Explosions minutes or even most of an hour before a collapse are NOT evidence for “controlled demolition”. The explosions in a controlled demolition all take place within seconds, or more usually small fractions of a second, before collapse.
Such explosions could be evidence of bombs, or be caused incidentally by damage, but they are not evidence for controlled demolition.
His injuries are in line with what would be expected from the high velocity impact of an airliner into a building. As Clark says how could an explosion bring down a building hours later?
‘Was 9/11 an inside job? Call for TRUTH over Building 7 collapse on eve of 15th anniversary’:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary
Even the Express covers it, and the comments are weighted heavily in line with an ‘Inside Job’; probably not what the editor intended!
Don’t forget, 14.30 outside the US Embassy, London for the 15th Anniversary Demo.
Yes Truthers have an odd relationship with the MSM. Mostly it’s an untrustworthy mouthpiece for the nasty PTB that they believe planned 9/11 which must be ignored at all costs but should they publish anything even vaguely supportive of conspiracy theories it’s seized upon as a indication of acceptance.
The Express sadly has form in it’s support for the equally ludicrous Diana conspiracies so the claim that “even the Express covers it” has very little credibility.
I’ll be in London tomorrow but nowhere near the US Embassy.
@ Kempe September 10, 2016 at 21:48
‘…..The Express sadly has form in it’s support for the equally ludicrous Diana conspiracies so the claim that “even the Express covers it” has very little credibility….’
Diana conspiracy ‘Ludicrous’? About as ‘Ludicrous’ as Tony Bliar’s contempt for a proper investigation into 7/7, which inspired the title for a 7/7 documentary, ‘Ludicrous Diversions’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpDS4AxjHg8
‘….I’ll be in London tomorrow but nowhere near the US Embassy…..’
Palace Green, by any chance?
The conspiracy theories about 9/11 are generally lumped together under the most absurd ones, like that of Info Wars or that lizard guy, and them quickly dismissed.
I usually see conspiracies going wrong because of some misconcepion, mistake or surprise, and 9/11 is no exception because of mistaking the suicide bombers for hijackers.
Clark Kempe forgot to find a phone box to change in! But they certainly took the bait!
RIP – Those folk murdered when the WTC towers collapsed:
Neutron explosive devices with upward defectors were in the basements sending shock waves straight up which broke the molecular bond of the 4″ thick 1 acre concrete floors turning them into dust and at the same time cutter charges were set on diagonals on the core columns via the elevator shafts. Isotope levels were high for only a few days. The excavation pit showed glazed rock from these devices. Random vehicles were melted on the streets from deflected gamma rays which escaped. I watched the towers fall.
Mike Sherma – Chief Fire Officer
Like · Reply · 7 September at 20:48
That sounds like someone that knew one or more of the conspirators. Do you have any further information?
Has anyone seen Edward Zwick’s 1998 film The Siege, and what do they think of it?
It recalls the Muslim attack on the WTC in 1993, and implies it will be repeated.
Interesting that interest in it had simmered down, Yale senior Suzanne Jovin apparently recalled it in her proposed senior thesis, and was brutally murdered when she persisted in the claim, apparently from a source within the Muslim-American community around New Haven.
Must get her parents to allow me to see the thesis so I can talk more authoritatively about it when the 18th anniversary of her apparent assassination rolls around in early December.
The FBI planned the 1993 attack and supplied the explosives, as well as the Egyptian guy who they got to head the group of Patsies.
The Egyptian even taped the FBI, after they refused to exchange the explosives for fake explosives, as he realised he might be being set up (instead of the Patsies he was setting up on behalf of the FBI).
You could well be onto something, mate. I had never heard of Suzanne Jovin, but found this: ‘Yale student’s ’98 murder linked to 9/11?’:
http://killtown.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/yale-students-98-murder-linked-to-911.html
I should try what you have in mind asap, but take care! There is absolutely no doubt ’93 was an FBI set-up.
And the ‘Conclusion’ van de Velde said she had given seems trite and self-serving to NWO Neocon plans for 9/11.
‘The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory’:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/09/paul-craig-roberts/tide-turning/
Also: ‘Europhysics, the respected publicaton of the European physics community has pubished an article by scientists who conclude that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three [World Trade Center] buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” Few American scientists can admit this, because their careers depend on US government and military/security complex research contracts. Independent scientists in the US are a vanishing breed, an endangered species.
The scientists say that in view of their findings, “it is morally imperative” that 9/11 “be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.”
So now we are faced with a peculiar situation. The scientifically ignorant two-bit punk American presstitutes claim to know more than the editors of the journal of the European physics community and the scientists who did the investigation. Don’t you think it farfetched that ignorant, corrupt, and cowardly American journalists who lie for money know more than physicists, chemists, 2,700 high-rise architects and structural engineers who have called on the US Congress to launch a real investigation of 9/11, firefighters and first responders who were on the WTC scene, military and civilian pilots and former high government officials, all of whom are on record challenging the unbelievable and physically impossible official story of 9/11? What kind of a dumbshit moron does a person have to be to believe that the United States government and its media whores know better than the laws of physics?
The ability of the presstitutes to influence Americans seems to be on the decline. The media ganged up on Donald Trump during the Republican primaries, intending to deny Trump the nomination. But the voters ignored the presstitutes. In the current presidential campaign, Hillary is not the run-away winner that the presstitutes are trying to make her. And despite the propaganda ministry, the legs under the official 9/11 story are wobbly, to say the least.
Indeed, the official 9/11 story already has lost credibility with the American public. Last April a Rasmussen Poll found that “Americans doubt they’ve been told all the facts about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and strongly believe the government should come clean.”
So, ‘“the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three [World Trade Center] buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.” Few American scientists can admit this, because their careers depend on US government and military/security complex research contracts. Independent scientists in the US are a vanishing breed, an endangered species…..’, but who cares a toss? A few ‘expert commenters’ on this blog reckon differently. Well, ‘Opinions are like a**holes, everyone’s got one’, as the saying is!!
Nothing beats former Vice President Dick Cheney blaming Obama for the fallout from the 9/11 attacks in an editorial in the WSJ when he along DCI George Tenet, Senator David Boren, NSA Director Michael Hayden er al. were responsible for causing the vast cockup.
It’s like blaming Churchill rrather than Hitler for starting WWII.
The 9/11-Truther-Denier team took another big hit below the waterline yesterday (Saturday Sep 10th) at the Justice in Focus Seminar taking place this past weekend (Sep 10-11) in NYC. On Saturday Dr. Leroy Hulsey – Department Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor, Ph.D., P. E., S.E., at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks gave a report on his in depth forensic examination of the WTC7 collapse process. It should be mentioned that in addition to the preceding qualifications listed for Professor Hulsey, he is also one of the leading experts in the USA in the field of forensic structural engineering, i.e. looking at the evidence to try and find out went wrong and why failure occured when a structural failure presents itself.
You can see a video of Professor Hulsey’s report to the Symposium at the 911blogger link below. After a few minutes of introductory remarks, the majority of the presentation is taken up with showing technical diagrams and explanations about how his team went about creating their computer modelling simulations for WTC7 and what the mistakes and omissions were that Professor Hulsey’s team found in the simulations that NIST had used. End result is that, figuratively speaking, Professor Hulsey gives NIST an F for their report, as he says that NIST’s proposed scenario of a girder being pushed off its support at column 79 due to thermal expansion, thereby starting a chain reaction of structural failures bringing down the entire building is impossible.
If you are not an engineer or physicist the engineering jargon probably won’t mean much to you in the video, but if you don’t have time or patience to sit through it and absorb what you can, you can skip to about the 27minute mark to get to the point where Professor Hulsey reverts back to more or less plain English and presents his conclusions and his final sentence: “Did building 7 Collapse due to fires? And the answer is NO!”
http://911blogger.com/news/2016-09-11/wtc-7-evaluation-concludes-fire-did-not-cause-wtc-7-collapse
That is now 2 senior, very credible and very experienced civil engineering professors (and one a leader in forensic engineering) who have put the NIST theory to the test that fire brought down WTC7 and pronounced that the available evidence and rigorous scientific analysis show that conclusion is entirely unrealistic. Professor Hulsey joins Civil Engineering Professor Emeritus Robert Korol at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada who has had two peer reviewed papers published in an engineering journal which reached the same conclusion as Professor Hulsey did: Fires did NOT cause the collapse of WTC7.
I’m sure Clarke Kempe will set them straight….