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).
You know what you lot are? Fucking lazy, that’s what. You’ll watch a load of YouTube, just like watching corporate media entertainment. You’ll rehash a load of Truther claims from Truther websites, but you won’t bother doing even the most perfunctory checks.
And your “arguments” are lazy too. If anyone challenges any of your Truther assertions, your only argument is that the questioner must be part of the conspiracy. You use that one argument over and over again, and yet object to being described as “conspiracy theorists”.
I’m reading NCSTAR 1. Can ANYONE else be bothered to read it? Do you have any right to dismiss it WITHOUT reading it? Or do you wear your ignorance as a badge of honour?
Is there an innocent explanation for the elevated levels of tritium that were found in the ruins of the World Trade Center?
I’ve looked into this only very briefly (too much nonsense to counter, wasting my time). Official sources claim night-sights and glow-in-the-dark exit signs, but sceptics say that those sources would yield too little for the concentrations measured. Someone could have planted it, of course – if I’m tending towards the entire demolition scenario being a psy-op. Or maybe another matter being covered up – someone was keeping illicit radioactives on site, the reasons remaining classified.
I don’t see how tritium would imply demolition anyway. You’d need to invoke some unheard of explosive device or weapon, so you’d be back in Flying Spaghetti Monster territory. But whatever, NIST seem to have identified the collapse initiation mechanism; that work needs to be refuted before there’s any sense in looking for demolition.
Unheard of, unsupported by nuclear science (the public stuff, at least, but it does have to fit with the rest of physics), and never known to have been seen on any battlefield. It’s a long stretch…
I wrote – “Official sources claim night-sights and glow-in-the-dark exit signs” – but actually I don’t know if official sources have addressed this at all; I’m not sure whether the exit-signs-and-night-sights theory was from an official body or from someone else.
Truther logic:
Truther – “We know the Twin Towers were demolished because hundreds of boxes labelled BB 18 contained detonators for the demolition”.
Sceptic – “Here’s Littelfuse’s catalogue; BB 18 is a mains electricity safety device”.
Truther – “But BB 18 MUST be detonators, because the buildings were demolished!”
Sceptic – “Your argument is circular; you’re using your conclusion of demolition to support your ‘evidence’ for demolition”
Truther – “You’re supporting the official story, so you must be part of the conspiracy”.
This is how witch trials were conducted.
Prosecution – “You’re a witch, because feverfew was found in your cottage”
Defendant – “That isn’t feverfew, it’s rosemary”
Prosecution – “But it must be feverfew because you’re a witch!”
Have you no standards?
Prosecution – “Ah! So you admit to knowing feverfew from rosemary! Guilty as charged!”
Is there ANYONE here who will join me in a call for better checking of Truther assertions? Node, you seem the most likely…
Lying again, Clarke:
Here is my comment:
‘Paul Barbara
February 26, 2016 at 23:10
@ Clark: ‘“Urban” is quite a common surname and New York has a population of millions; can you substantiate that the Urban of the Gelatin performance art group was in fact involved with the “Dancing Israelis” and Urban Removals..’
No, I can’t; just another of the remarkable set of ‘coincidences’ occurring re 9/11.
‘…And can you substantiate this:
“the cardboard boxes weren’t just any old boxes; the numbers on them show they had originally contained special fuses of the kind used in controlled demolition”
Yes, I could, but it would require too much work for me, seeing as if I presented the links to you, you would dismiss them. Do the work yourself, if it really interests you.’
‘but at least you’ve discredited Paul Barbara’s claim that he could prove the boxes contained detonators:’
As is clear, I did not mention ‘detonators’. So the only one you have ‘discredited’ is yourself, once again, as if you have done already innumerable times on this blog.
No, I decided to use the word “detonators” to avoid confusion inherent in the word “fuses”, since “fuses” can mean either devices that initiate detonation, or it can mean electrical safety components.
It’s you that’s lying, Paul. You claimed you could prove that the boxes contained fuses for demolition, but Littelfuse’s catalogue shows that they contained (holders for) electrical safety components.
Grief… Someone please sympathise; it’s like wading through porridge.
Fucking hell, I just opened a mains plug and it had a 13A fuse in it! So I checked some other plugs and they’ve ALL got fuses in. The CIA must be about to demolish my house! Argh!
@ Clark September 26, 2016 at 18:43
‘Fucking hell, I just opened a mains plug and it had a 13A fuse in it! So I checked some other plugs and they’ve ALL got fuses in. The CIA must be about to demolish my house! Argh!’
Once again, you’re lying, or are more of an idiot than I thought. I do not believe you opened up a number of mains plugs, as you would already know that they contain fuses, without needing to check.
And remember, Gelatin weren’t CIA, but linked to a ‘Foreign Country’ that is supposed to be an ally of the US.
Paul, you’re right, I didn’t open any mains plugs. But I wasn’t lying, I was taking the piss.
Are you for real? Or in Yorkish, what’re y’like?
Again you’re lying, with the evidence right there to prove it!
‘“the cardboard boxes weren’t just any old boxes; the numbers on them show they had originally contained special fuses of the kind used in controlled demolition”.
‘…of the kind used in controlled demolition…’ is NOT the same as saying ‘..fuses for demolition..’
And you put words into my mouth, to ‘avoid confusion’!
‘No, I decided to use the word “detonators” to avoid confusion inherent in the word “fuses”, since “fuses” can mean either devices that initiate detonation, or it can mean electrical safety components.’
So, lies to cover lies….but ‘only to avoid confusion’.
No, you’re making the claim that BB 18 are fuses of a kind used in controlled demolition. It’s up to you to provide proof.
Gelatin is a group of four artists from Vienna. The last time I looked Vienna was not in Israel. How did they become Israelis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelitin
@ Kempe
I didn’t say they were Israelis, but some of them did lodge in an Israeli’s two properties in New York.
The whole story of Gelatin does not ‘prove’ they installed explosives, but it is surely rather suspicious, being just a floor or two below where the ‘plane’ is supposed to have struck.
It was John Goss claimed they were Israelis but then every Truther website and video that covers the story makes the same erroneous claim.
Gelatin shared the 91st floor as an open space with other artists. I doubt any explosives planted there would’ve remained undisturbed for the better part of a year besides there is no evidence that there were any explosives.
http://www.gelitin.net/projects/b-thing/
My God. I’m getting as popular as Putin for the amount of slanders against me. I did not say they were Israelis. This is what I said.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-95/#comment-626192
Please don’t try and ascribe to me statements I never made. I have had enough of that in the past from your friends, RD and H.
Paul, Rebekah Roth’s assertion is dishonest. It obviously plays on the multiple meanings of the word “fuses”. It’s designed to TRICK people into thinking that the boxes were used to deliver detonator fuses, and it successfully tricked me as to its meaning. It even says “REMOTE controlled demolition”, ie. radio activated; why on Earth would such devices require 115 amp 1000 volt power feed lugs, which is what the catalogue states BB 18 to be? “BB” almost certainly stands for “bus bar”. The title of the catalogue page is “bus bar system”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_bar
Whatever, do you believe me now? These are mains electrical power distribution components; it’s utterly normal and boring to find them in buildings and they have nothing to do with demolition, remote controlled or otherwise.
Now, you either accept this or not; check it with an electrician, electrical contractors, or on a demolition technicians’ forum; wherever you like. But if you DO accept that BB 18 are just mains distribution components, please tell me what you think of Rebekah Roth’s Methodical Deception.
But my guess is that you’d rather just go silent on this matter, thinking something like “well you win some, and you lose some”. But truth isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about descriptions fitting the facts. Or are you a New Age type, who thinks that nuclear chain reactions are possible only because Leo Szilard filed a patent?
‘..Paul, Rebekah Roth’s assertion is dishonest. It obviously plays on the multiple meanings of the word “fuses”. It’s designed to TRICK people into thinking that the boxes were used to deliver detonator fuses, and it successfully tricked me as to its meaning….’
It may have ‘successfully tricked you’, but that doesn’t seem too difficult….most folk associate ‘fuses’ as electrical fuses, and ‘detonators’ as – yes – explosive detonators.
Oh I see. So if you asked your neighbour why he was digging in his garden and he said he was planting bulbs, would you assume he was burying 60 watt quartz-halogens or something? Maybe you’d even expect them to sprout?
Anyway, hundreds of BB 18 115 amp 1000 volt power feed lugs would have no conceivable use in demolition. So why, do you think, did Rebekah Roth tell us otherwise? Why did she call them fuses at all, which they’re not?
Paul, you’re getting into a similar position as the US authorities over 9/11. It’s getting so hard to believe you’re really this incompetent that I’m beginning to doubt your good faith.
What’s really, really depressing is that humans would rather argue, fight, smear and lie than simply admit error.
It’s ego that tells us we’re right, even when we’re wrong.
And if Truthers do that rather than admit error, how can we expect the US government to be any better?
Bang on the money. Your massive ego is blocking out any rational thought processes.
Two planes, three huge buildings destroyed.
Silly, isn’t it.
All you need for a building to fall down is to wait long enough. Had the attacks not occurred, but for some reason the Twin Towers had been left abandoned, do you really think they’d still be there in a thousand years time? No planes at all.
I think you haven’t been reading the thread for very long because you don’t seem to know my opinion. I still wonder if Building 7 was brought down with explosives or not. There is somewhat convincing evidence either way. But I can find NO convincing evidence for pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers.
@ Clark September 27, 2016 at 02:55
‘Oh I see. So if you asked your neighbour why he was digging in his garden and he said he was planting bulbs, would you assume he was burying 60 watt quartz-halogens or something? Maybe you’d even expect them to sprout?
Anyway, hundreds of BB 18 115 amp 1000 volt power feed lugs would have no conceivable use in demolition. So why, do you think, did Rebekah Roth tell us otherwise? Why did she call them fuses at all, which they’re not?’
No, they are not fuses, and I (nor, I believe, did Rebekah Roth, though if you can isolate where she said it, please do so) never said they were – THEY ARE FUSE HOLDERS.
You are a waste of time, most of the time.
Paul Barbara, September 27, 2016 at 08:27:
Paul Barbara, February 25, 2016 at 03:39:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-83/#comment-580437
Paul, you’re never wrong and utterly honest, so I assume these comments must be some sort of optical illusion.
Sorry, Clarke, you are right here – I did misadvertantly write ‘fuses’. It was a slip – even I’m not perfect!
Paul, thank you.
So, do you still regard those cardboard boxes as evidence that an Austrian performance art group rigged the twin Towers for demolition? Will you be repeating such a claim, elsewhere, or later when I’m not about to challenge it?
You gotta love this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42mrcgxLe98
Allegedly screened six months before 9/11.
Ah, the fun keeps comming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUv9grv-WE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uic7Z3RY34
Amazing aren’t they
Each of the mainstream TV programmes and cartoons in the compilations you’ve linked was written by someone. Please make a list of those writers, because they must be either very dangerous criminals, or they know who the perpetrators of 9/11 are. This is a real opportunity because those writers names are very easy to find, in the credits for the TV shows.
Well done TFS; I do believe you’ve cracked it!
Wow, I feel so honoured to have shared a thread with such brilliant minds. How could I have been so stupid all these years?
I really must move to Iraq and live among ISIS and Al Nusra. It’s just too dangerous here in the West, surrounded by cartoon writers, performance artists, structural engineers, air crash investigators and Israelis with flats in big cities.
Syria will undoubtedly be a much safer place when the moderate rebels have beheaded all the dangerous criminals like the ones above.
@ Clark September 27, 2016 at 12:19
‘Syria will undoubtedly be a much safer place when the moderate rebels have beheaded all the dangerous criminals like the ones above.’
You surely forgot to add at the end of your sentence after ‘above’: ‘..at the behest of their US, Turkish, Saudi, Qatari, Israeli and NATO paymasters and arms suppliers’.
No I didn’t forget. I’ll expound later when I have time.
Paul Barbara,
first, some explanation. I generally start my comments with the full username of the person I’m addressing or replying to. I worry that this may seem rather formal or cold, but I do it anyway for the purpose of clarity in the developing thread. It could be argued that I could relax this rule to seem more friendly, and sometimes I do, but never for very long. The reason I do this has two parts. The first is that I encounter many comments which are clearly replies, but which I fail to understand fully because I can’t be sure which comment they’re replying to – not on this thread so much since there are only a few commenters here, but I keep to my rule anyway. The second part is that with threaded comments I can never be sure what might happen. For instance, another commenter called Paul may arrive and reply to earlier comments, and then that contributor’s comments would become interspersed with your own, leading to ambiguity. I’m explaining this because I feel that my use of full usernames may seem critical, but that is not my intention.
I saw a comment of yours on the front thread:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/09/forget-blairite-propaganda-sierra-leone-not-blairs-good-war/comment-page-2/#comment-626610
I’m glad to learn that you campaign in public. I have been less active in public since the Scottish independence referendum, for a number of reasons including depression. Recently I’ve only been doing on-line stuff, and supporting Jeremy Corbyn. Hopefully I’ll get through this difficult part of my life and begin contributing more fully again.
Insinuations that I’m part of the 9/11 cover-up or some sort of astroturfer for neoconservatism damage my state of mind. I’m not directing this specifically at you, Paul. Without checking thousands of comments, I think that a majority of commenters on this thread have made such insinuations against me. On other threads, RobG has accused me of working for the UK secret services because I argue against some of his more extreme assertions, and Macky has made very hurtful criticisms, attacking my character and utterly trashing my psychology, whenever I’ve criticised Kremlin policy. My depression centres around severe self-doubt, to the point of feeling suicidal. I really can’t withstand such attacks. The political Left is renown for internal divisions, often bitter, and a lot of the time over the last few years I’ve considered withdrawing from political engagement entirely in order to protect my state of mind. Various causes are in danger of losing the contribution I make.
It is wrong to shoot the messenger. It is wrong to try to attack a person’s psyche in order to silence their argument. It is wrong to attempt to smear a person or incite distrust of them because of the arguments that they advance. Such actions can injure the victim emotionally, but worse, they leave the argument unchallenged, and even worse than that, onlookers who are gentle and vulnerable are discouraged from engaging in political discussion. We need more of the gentler, more vulnerable people to enter the political environment. We need their ideas, their voices and their votes, to counter the aggression, ambition and ruthlessness that constitute the accepted hallmark of political interaction.
To return to the 9/11 debate, I can see what happened. A very small minority of scientific and engineering academics and professionals very forcefully claimed that the collapses of the Twin Towers would violate the laws of physics unless assisted by explosives. Frustrated for decades by the continual flood of corporate media propaganda, some activists thought they recognised a sure-fire opportunity. Physics is independent of opinion and as such insusceptible to propaganda. Within physics, hard, incontrovertible proof can be achieved. The US authorities’ account of 9/11 does not include demolition, so the aforementioned activists came to believe that revealing demolition would deliver an incontestable victory; the propaganda industry would be exposed and discredited once and for all.
I shared the same hope myself. Classical, Newtonian physics was one of my favourite studies. F=ma, P1.V1/T1=P2.V2/T2, F=G.m1.m2/d^2, K.E.=0.5.m.v^2 – these are my preferred medium; I find them supremely simple, elegant in the extreme, a delight to work with. I couldn’t think of a proof that the Towers couldn’t collapse so I awaited others’ work.
Then Craig published the post of this thread. I was surprised that it dismissed demolition so unequivocally since Craig hadn’t ventured into physics previously. I thought Craig might be on dodgy ground I knew there were lots of clever and well-informed commenters, and I waited for the iron-clad proof to be presented.
It never was. Articles presenting various physics arguments were linked, but the physics wasn’t convincing. The equations presented were always solved correctly, but those equations didn’t seem to bear a one-to-one correspondence with the physical systems, as they should. Some I couldn’t make sense of whereas I would have done had the representation been valid. But I didn’t jump to a conclusion; I thought that maybe another physicist would clarify or fill in missing pieces. And I waited for the physics community at large to present some arguments – I knew that physics was rigorous and if collapse really was impossible, that fact could never be hidden without invalidating the entire discipline.
Then Angrysoba brought TomK to the thread. Two things soon became obvious; TomK was a patronising, arrogant, long-winded, infuriating US American who trusted his government too much, and TomK could actually do physics. Commenters linked the “collapse impossible” arguments which I’d struggled to relate to the physical system, and in each case TomK confirmed my suspicions about them – correct maths, but invalid representation.
Then TomK went on to fill in some of the pieces I’d been missing, reminding me of what I already knew but had been forgetting, what I’d discovered in my own experience with structures; that the most important contribution to the strength of any structure comes not from its materials but from its geometry – “lose the geometry, lose the building” TomK wrote, and he’d completely proved his point. I still had (and still have) many disagreements with TomK’s opinions and politics, but physics is rigorous and I’d be a fool to argue with the trigonometric ratios and their implications for leverage.
– – – – – – –
So demolition had to be dismissed (for the Twin Towers; Building 7 is more ambiguous) – but that doesn’t alter my political position. So now I’d like to link three articles for you which I consider excellent, because these will give you a fair idea where I stand on a number of issues:
On 9/11, Gore Vidal:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2012/08/gore-vidal-passes-his-legacy-lives-on.html
On the Ghouta sarin attack and political misrepresentation of intelligence, Seymour Hersh:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
And on the big picture of the US, the Middle East, and US exploitation of religious extremism after AND BEFORE 9/11, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr:
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/
I don’t doubt that Saudi-inspired religious extremists hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings. I haven’t checked the direct evidence but the strategy fits neoconservatism perfectly – why risk your own neck (political or physical) when a bunch of “dumb Arabs” will create the crisis you want without even being asked? All you need to do is stand back, watch, and laugh.
If you want a lead into a role that Israeli interests might have played, look up Ptech software.
Don’t you find it strange that none of the ‘alleged hijackers’ is shown boarding any of the 4 aircraft, or in any the check-in lines, or appeared on the flight manifests?
IF it was true that these 19 so-called hijackers got on the planes, WHY on earth wouldn’t the government show pictures of them?
That is why they claim to have so much CCTV surveillance – to keep citizens safe.
But just like Princess Di, where the French say the cameras weren’t working, and the London 7/7 bombings, where NOT ONE picture has ever been made public of any of the four on the Underground trains or stations, and the 3 CCTV cameras on the bus which was blown up were also said to be not working, the Yanks show no CCTV footage.
There are so many inconsistencies, impossibilities and down-right contradictions in the ‘Official Conspiracy Theory’, it should be plain as a pike-staff they made the whole plot up:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/worldmessenger_alive.html
” Don’t you find it strange that none of the ‘alleged hijackers’ is shown boarding any of the 4 aircraft, or in any the check-in lines, or appeared on the flight manifests? ”
Jesus Christ not that old chestnut again. Try running “9/11 hijackers at airport” and you’ll find plenty of pictures and the flight manifests you think you’ve seen are lists of VICTIMS, not full passenger lists, so of course the hijackers’ names don’t appear. I’ve lost count of the number of times that’s been explained to Truthers over the past 15 years. It just doesn’t sink in does it?
” I don’t fully understand the logic, but students of the PTB claim by tipping people off (albeit in comic or fiction) about their plans, they somehow get some kind of absolution ”
Well we agree about something! What you’re suggesting is that every producer and scriptwriter is part of some sinister network which is in on the government’s plans. Finding obscure references to 9 and 11 in old films is just mumbo-jumbo akin to numerology, you find what you’re looking for in such exercises. As for the Panorama programme it was broadcast just two months after the train bombings in Madrid so of course there was concern that it could happen in London.
And that explains the uncanny resemblance of the Panorama program to future events, with three tube trains and a lorry (not a bus, but road transport).
And on 7/7. the ‘Security Expert’ doing a ‘drill’ at the very tube stations involved, on the day and even same time as the attacks? Pure coincidence?
I take it you believe in the ‘tooth fairy’ and Santa Claus, Kempe?
The drill as you call it was a paper exercise conducted in an office. Such things happen every day of the week. Please explain the significance.
The same is true of the Panorama programme. Incidentally the lorry involved was a hi-jacked tanker full of toxic chemicals. That didn’t happen did it? Despite frequent drills and predictions we’re still waiting for that “dirty bomb” or poison gas attack.
I thought the tooth fairy had been eaten by those shep-shifting lizards.
The trial was not a paper exercise, ignore Kempe
Paul, I assume the lack of CCTV images is because there’s a cover-up, obviously. However, you are assuming that what is being covered up is a complete absence of hijackers. It could also be argued that this part of the cover-up is to withhold the hijackers’ identities. If the hijackers had trained at US bases, for instance, others from those bases might recognise them and speak out. Similar arguments can be applied to the withholding of some of the passenger manifests.
I seem to have found an image from the flight 93 passenger manifest. Apparently, the flight 175 manifest has also been publicly displayed, and one CCTV clip.:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/05/911-hijackers-not-on-flight-manifests/
I’ve also watched the first twenty minutes of the Zero documentary. It’s heavy on emotional appeal and sinister music, and hasn’t given me any new information so far. It’s clearly trying to convince me rather than inform me, and I object to that.
But worse, it’s being dishonest. Using selective editing and a dishonest caption, it’s falsely asserting that the Twin Towers collapsed at free-fall acceleration; just watching the videos of the collapses proves this false. At 17 minutes 52 seconds, it shows a collapse video clip that looks to me like it’s been speeded up.
Deception is deception – I don’t care which “side” is doing it; it’s wrong.
Paul, I’m going to give up on this soon. I just waste too much time looking into claims only to find that they’re false. They’re not merely wrong; they’re deliberately distorted or fabricated. Deceptive. Sorry, I’m not in a good mood about this.
‘Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists’: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_17.htm
My understanding is that the Manifests were not published, so I don’t know where that piece of indo in your link came from; I do know for a fact, that a guy whom I know, who lost a brother in the North Tower, got a point-blank refusal when he asked the FBI to see the Manifest of the plane that was supposed to have hit the North Tower.
The above link gives more anomalies – the incredible paucity of passengers on all 4 so-called hijacked planes, and again, the bloody-minded refusal of the FBI to cooperate.
Pity you didn’t persevere with ‘Zero’, and THEN made a judgement.
” My understanding is that the Manifests were not published ”
Then how do you know the terrorists’ names weren’t on them?
@ Kempe – you have a point there, because the original Manifests have never been released – even to the Moussaoui trial, just unauthenticated info supposedly from them.
And still the FBI refuses to release them. Why, as all the so-called ‘passengers’ have been named, and so have the so-called ‘hijackers’?
@ Clark September 28, 2016 at 23:28
‘Paul, I assume the lack of CCTV images is because there’s a cover-up, obviously. However, you are assuming that what is being covered up is a complete absence of hijackers. It could also be argued that this part of the cover-up is to withhold the hijackers’ identities. If the hijackers had trained at US bases, for instance, others from those bases might recognise them and speak out. Similar arguments can be applied to the withholding of some of the passenger manifests.’
That’s totally illogical, seeing as the government agencies gave the names and photos of the ‘alleged’ hijackers to the MSM, which obviously publicised them, so ‘others on those bases’ would have recognised them anyhow.
No, it’s not illogical, quite the opposite. That the manifests are still concealed implies either that there are differences between the names on the manifests and names that have been declared to the public, or that the authorities wish to give that impression.
Oh, the same goes for the London 7/7 bombings. Intelligence services “tolerated” religious extremists and made a deal that they could live safely in the UK so long as they only committed violence in other countries – of course, I fully expect that some of that “terrorism” was more than tolerated. It was a policy and it had a name; the “Covenant of Security”. Fucking proxy forces again.
Watch ‘ZERO: An Investigation Into 9-11 | Full Documentary’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gETF0_SOXcg
It’s two hours, but shows very clearly that your idea that ‘dumb extremists’ flew the planes just makes no sense at all – the whole thing was scripted to lay blazingly obvious ‘Red Herring’ trails that a kid of ten could see through.
I don’t think you gave due credit to the videos TFS provided of obviious foreknowledge, long before the events.
I don’t fully understand the logic, but students of the PTB claim by tipping people off (albeit in comic or fiction) about their plans, they somehow get some kind of absolution – as I say, it doesn’t really make much sense to me, but they certainly do it a lot (like the Panorama episode with Portillo and others, a year before 7/7, discussing an almost identical attack, on three tubes and a truck:
‘BBC Panorama: London Under Attack (the show that predicted 7/7)’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uIjg9dtoI
Making what really happened obvious to those who are paying attention are the powers’ that be way of flaunting their power and intimidating those who are scared of powerful and reckless people.
John Kennedy could have been killed with poison, but the way they did it made what really happened obvious to those in the know.
Clark: I don’t doubt that Saudi-inspired religious extremists hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings
I wondered how you account for the extraordinarily high speeds for standard planes at low altitude, and the pin-point accuracy achieved by 3 out of 3 of the pilots that hit their targets?
High speeds – the pilots didn’t care about keeping within safe limits or damaging the aircraft.
Pinpoint accuracy – Saudi military pilots. Actually, I think hitting either of the Twin Towers was fairly easy; a nice straight final approach. The approach taken to hit the Pentagon was much more challenging.
Uzmark, I wrote: “…keeping within safe limits or damaging the aircraft” – do you know about elasticity in metals and elastic limit? If not, I’ll explain, or you could look it up.
“the pilots didn’t care about keeping within safe limits or damaging the aircraft”
Would they not care if it would reduce their ability to hit with pin-point accuracy?
“Saudi military pilots”
Did they just pretend to be incompetent when flying the training planes?
“The approach taken to hit the Pentagon was much more challenging”
OK, I’m asking your thoughts on how they may have achieved this one (if you think the Twin Towers were fairly easy)
Point 1) – but pin-point accuracy wasn’t needed, was it? We’re talking several times the side of a barn. But in any case, there are multiple videos of the second aircraft strike, so do what I did earlier in the thread and use them to estimate the speed of approach.
Point 2) – yes, possibly they did fake incompetence during training. But we only have official word for which of each five (or four) hijackers actually flew each aircraft, and the authorities haven’t admitted that any of them were military pilots or trained at US military bases.
Point 3) – I haven’t looked at the Pentagon evidence very much, because I end up spending hours watching YouTube vids and countering the misinformation they put out, mostly about “controlled demolition” – which I’m about to have to do yet again, I see. But assuming it was flight 77 at all, I reckon the attack team’s ace pilot flew that final turn and crash.
Clark: re pentagon: “But assuming it was flight 77 at all”,
But I thought we were discussing your comment that you “don’t doubt that Saudi-inspired religious extremists hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings” ??
3 out of 3 planes that engaged their targets hit with remarkable accuracy despite doing more than double the top speed for the altitude. Many experienced pilots have questioned this.
Clark made the point that they wouldn’t care if they damaged the planes with the speed, I made the point that i think they would care if it meant missing and jeopardizing the mission
Well, presumably it was a matter of judgement at the time.
I don’t fly, but maybe you drive or ride a bike. Have you ever taken a bend a bit faster than you were completely confident with, but managed to stay on the road? How many times have you come of the road, and how many times have you got away with it?
In vehicle design there is inevitably a trade-off between stability and manoeuvrability. The more manoeuvrable, the less stable. Fighter aircraft are designed such that they can make very sharp turns, but consequently they are less self-stabilising. Passenger aircraft are the opposite; they tend to draw themselves back to a straight line. Once the pilot had a straight run to the target, all he needed to do was hold the aircraft steady.
This reasoning suggests that the impact velocity on the Pentagon was probably a lot lower than the highest impact velocity at the Twin Towers, due to the curving approach at the Pentagon. I don’t know the figures off-hand; what were they?
Pin point accuracy? Well the second aircraft didn’t hit square on and why is pin point accuracy needed to hit a building twice as wide as the main runway at Heathrow? Any pilot incapable of that would have great trouble landing.
The Obama veto has been overturned and the Saudi’s can be prosecuted for their part in 9/11 and their defence will be?
The Saudi defense will be that they told Washington all about the 19 hijackers but the Bush crazies chose to catch them at LA as a cause for ousting the Takuban un Afghanistan.
The alleged hijackers, unfortunately, turned out to be armed suicide bombers,
This is the most interesting comment I’ve seen in ages. Thanks Trowbridge. I’ll get back to you later…
“and their defence will be? ….. drum roll…..actually some boring pre worked out legal technicalities to save them from any defence (or needing to drop their mates in it)
Saudi defense already published: Saudi Press Accuses US Govt Of Carrying Out 9/11 Attacks (May 24, 2016):
Shorter; “Trust us. Asymmetric warfare is complicated”.
Many state actors will have their masks removed for the general population as charges and counter-accusations fly. Just like the debates…it’s popcorn time.
The public exposure in civil cases is part of the Establishmentarian problem.
It will become a circus and there is the likelihood that it could make the French guillotine pale by comparison. Many less culpable will have their lives destroyed by a metaphorical lynch mob.
The most culpable will skate just like Pinochet, Bush, Cheney et al.
– “Many less culpable will have their lives destroyed by a metaphorical lynch mob”
Quite. Here we have a mob going after a bunch of engineers at NIST, when they should be trawling through the CIA and the politicians.
Ah, well….’The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on’…….(much to our many Troll’s chagrine):
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=c5adb2b75c&e=%5BUNIQID%5D
‘Today our feature article in Europhysics News, the magazine of the European Physical Society, surpassed a once-unthinkable milestone of 250,000 online views. In the 12 days since we last updated you, it’s reached an additional 60,000 readers. And that doesn’t include the magazine’s 25,000 subscribers — all physicists in Europe — who received a copy in the mail.
It’s impossible to find accurate metrics. But, given that the next most popular article at EurophysicsNews.org has 1,286 views, we think it’s safe to say that 250,000 readers ranks this article pretty high among the most-read articles ever for scientific publications…..’
Of course, Europhysics News may not be quite up to the ‘Mickey Mouse’ standards of ‘Popular Mechanics’, but it IS the magazine of the European physics community, DESPITE what ‘debunker’ sites may splutter:
http://www.eps.org/?page=publi_epn
‘About EPN
Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences. It is distributed to all our Individual Members and many institutional subscribers. Most EPS Member Societies receive EPN for further distribution to their members. The total circulation is currently about 25000 copies per issue.
Editor: V.R. Velasco
Science Editor: Jo Hermans
Director of Publications: Jean-Marc Quilbé
Production Manager: Agnès Henri
Advertising: Jessica Ekon
Graphic Designer: Xavier de Araujo
Of course no mention of how many have read the article and dismissed it for the rubbish it is. I expect a backlash which of course AE911 will ignore.
But the most prestigious physics journal in Europe didn’t dismiss it as rubbish. Their 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. They are making a position statement.
So who’s judgement should I trust in this dispute about the laws of physics? Kempe’s or the European Physical Society’s?
Yes the disclaimer distancing themselves from the views of the authors. No other article they’ve published carries such a disclaimer. I suspect they might’ve run this article as an Aunt Sally. As I say it’ll be interesting to see the responses.
There is no dispute about the laws of physics. Just Truther ignorance.
Yes the disclaimer distancing themselves from the views of the authors
No! Just the opposite. They say “we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers.” Please note the word “we.”
I have repeatedly made the point that every word of this ‘disclaimer’ must have been VERY carefully chosen, and you have not argued the point.* You must therefore agree that their inclusion of the word “we” is deliberate. It follows that they are not distancing themselves, they are specifically associating themselves with the views of the authors.
*Do you want to now?
Damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. I think they’re right to publish that article, and I expect it to be thoroughly refuted – that’s the scientific process in action.
But I doubt that its publication will stop the Truthers claiming that their arguments are widely censored. This will be like the creationists who demanded that creation receive as much classroom time as evolution. In a few months time the Truthers will be saying “yes they published that ONE article, but apart from that our views are effectively censored by the conspiracy”.
Of course the article is popular – it’s attracted huge numbers of Truthers who would never otherwise look at Europhysics News.
Sorry folks, I have replies for various, but no time to post at present…
Paul, I haven’t given up on Zero. I’ll pull the whole thing to bits when I get time 🙂
“I’ll pull the whole thing to bits when I get time ?”
There’s nothing like keeping an open mind 🙂
Clark uses science rather than hyperbole for his arguments. You should try it.
Oddly enough, so do more than 2,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Yes, this is logic and basic physics. You should all try some sometime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiwpj7aa9c8&feature
Then explain this:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
In all off the examples the falling section remains intact until it hits the ground because it is not experiencing the same forces as the supports of the floors below it. Gravity is working with the falling section not against it. The falling mass also increases as the collapse progresses.
John Goss, 17:33; I’ve watched the video you linked. It is so wrong in so many respects that I’m not sure where to start, and I really do have far more important things I must be getting on with. I’ll try to think up some suitable analogies, but for now…
The biggest problem is that they are indeed treating the buildings like piles of snow, and that is so, so wrong. Imagine making a plan, looking straight down on a cross-section of one of the Twin Towers. Now mark that plan in varying colours to represent the amount of upward resistance at each point. It is true that every upright column presents huge upward resistance, so mark them, say, red. However, the very large floor areas present a tiny fraction of that resistance. Each horizontal floor slab could support only about three to four times its own weight, so mark them, say, blue.
Now look at your plan. Nearly all its area is blue. Around the rectangular external edge and around the inner rectangle that represents the core are lots of little red squares which represent the columns seen end-on, but the vast majority of the plan’s area is blue.
You’re an engineer, you should be able to see what I’m getting at here. Relatively speaking, there really isn’t much resistance to material crashing its way through the floor slabs, is there? The upright columns present orders of magnitude more resistance than the floor slabs do. It’s not a bit like a block of snow.
Kempe, 19:18; your URL’s incomplete.
Thanks for pointing that out:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Kempe, thanks, but sorry, that argument doesn’t cut the mustard because the demolition is initiated half way up the building. Chandler covers that in John Goss’s linked vid.
Kempe: …and then the Truthers will say “Ah but the top blocks of the twin Towers didn’t remain in tact until the bottom, so they must have been blown apart by explosives”.
Clark at 20:18 the laws of physics are immutable. As to “Relatively speaking, there really isn’t much resistance to material crashing its way through the floor slabs, is there?”
Yes, total resistance. You clearly did not watch it closely enough because every concrete floor was reinforced with steel girders throughout!
I am a mechanical engineer, well a toolmaker to be precise. This is structural engineering and a specialist field in its own right. In Birmingham we know a little about structural engineering with Spaghetti Junction, which still stands despite the weight of all the articulated lorries, supertankers and juggernauts which it was not designed to accommodate. Structural engineers build in much more strength and support than is necessary for obvious reasons.
Do you Clark have an engineering background? Because if not don’t you think the opinions of a huge number of Engineers and Scientists for 9/11 truth would be more reliable than a layperson’s?
Truthers will always find a way to deny the blindingly obvious even when it’s thrust in their face.
John Goss, 22:28: yes, classical physics is the field I’m most comfortable in. Mostly I repair things, so I have a pretty good feel for how things break, and how to fix them so that they last longer. My school wanted me to apply for the Oxbridge entrance exams, but I found Cambridge Uni too stuffy and elitist during my UCCA visit. Instead I did a year of a Physics and Electronics BSc at QMC London. I dropped out after a year, partly because nearly all the graduates were going into employment with weapons manufacturers. Wanna compare school exam results? I still have my certificates. I’ll warn you, I got rather a lot of grades A and B, mostly in sciences and maths.
“Total resistance” huh? How?! The floor slabs were four inches of lightweight concrete on lightweight steel trusses! They were only designed to support about four times their own weight (as a static load!), but over ten floors’ worth of material fell on them – fell, ie. a dynamic load! Please explain to me how they could have withstood that.
John, the arguments in that vid about reaction force and deceleration would be valid if we were discussing a block of foam concrete or similar, such that the upward resistance was uniform over the whole cross-sectional area. But we’re not, because the Towers weren’t like that. Their physics isn’t wrong, but it’s completely misapplied.
What of the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who don’t subscribe to AE911? Truthers aren’t interested in their opinions because they’re not looking for truth just a reinforcement of their pre-conceived bias.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/
Several bad things in that video Mr Goss posted. That demonstration with the crashing cars was particularly misleading. It would’ve been slightly more meaningful had one of the cars been stationary and the other allowed to keep accelerating after the collision.
@ Kempe September 30, 2016 at 00:22
‘What of the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who don’t subscribe to AE911? Truthers aren’t interested in their opinions because they’re not looking for truth just a reinforcement of their pre-conceived bias.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/
Several bad things in that video Mr Goss posted. That demonstration with the crashing cars was particularly misleading. It would’ve been slightly more meaningful had one of the cars been stationary and the other allowed to keep accelerating after the collision.’
Ah but, Kempe, all these ‘jobsworth’ tens of thousands of engineers and scientists are too busy making mega-bucks out of the corrupt system, to bother challenging peer-reviewed papers, never mind writing any themselves.
Wonder why you and Kempe don’t unite and give it a try? Oh, sorry, neither of you has the qualifications, never mind the material.
Ah, an ad hominem attack rather than any attempt to argue against science.
Actually Clark and I are qualified enough to assimulate information and come to our own conclusions as opposed to blindly following the lead set by others.
Right. So it’s an ad hominem attack to suggest someone isn’t qualified on a particular subject, but it’s fair to call someone a tin foil hat wearing tooth fairy believer.
Is there a list of these rules somewhere?
To digress for a moment does anyone remember in February this year a video I posted of a phone call interview with the artist who admitted he created the hologram images used in some of the official footage of 9/11 to which this is a response. It is no longer, as far as I can see, on this blog.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-75/#comment-576425
Exposed as a hoaxer and gone to ground I think.
All ‘Truthers’ have been ‘exposed’ as hoaxsters, and if someone goes to ground, it could well be they have been ‘warned off’ (like Michael Meacher was, when he was going to show a 9/11 Truth video in the Houses of Parliament).
I don’t know what the link was, so I can’t venture an opinion as to if it seems likely to me.
Meacher only thought the US had deliberately ignored advance warnings of 9/11. He didn’t subscribe to claims of controlled demolition or holographic planes, mini-nukes or direct energy weapons.
I suggest you search a little more, before you decide what he ‘only’ thought.
And no one suggested he did subscribe to the other things you mentioned, so why muddy the waters?
Proof! More likely taken down by person or persons unknown. Can’t find it anywhere. Why’s that then?
As to your comment at 00:22 am. When a car hits a stationary object like a tree or lampost there is resistance. Hope this satisfies your enquiring mind.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/features/a4916/features-web-originals-anatomy-of-a-high-speed-car-crash/
John Goss, are you sure it was you who posted that link? I though that you posted the Captain Lear link which alleged hologram planes…
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-96/#comment-626916
…and Exexpat posted the link to the animator’s telephone call (actually to a playlist of three vids), which is the comment immediately before your one linked above. Is that what you’re looking for?
Yes, I’m sure it was me. Whether anyone else posted it or not I don’t know. Do you remember it? You said you were going to respond but when you did not I gave up on the thread. Anyway it is not there now.
John, the following seems to be your penultimate comment from February. You posted one more comment, and then no more until this month:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-76/#comment-576621
That comment contains a link to another:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-23/#comment-576334
…but there’s something funny about it. From the URL you can see that it links way back to page 23 of comments. But look at the last bit, the six digit comment number, 576334. That’s only 287 less than your comment that contains the link, whereas comments on page 23 run from only 275383 to (Suhayl Saadi) to 275412 (juniper) – some 300,000 comments ago and way back in 2010.
But I think I see what has happened. None of the comments on page 23 are threaded. Threaded comments must have been enabled since you posted your comment in February this year, and it caused the page numbers to change. I’ll see if I can find comment number 576334.
Thanks Clark. I noticed that strange link last night. Do you remember addressing the video which was quite short?
John Goss, it wasn’t you who linked to the video about the animator; it was Exexpat, as I said. I’ve found a comment of my own in which I noted that at the time:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-75/#comment-576436
So, what of your comment above: “Proof! More likely taken down by person or persons unknown”? Not only have you accused Craig and his team of subterfuge rather than suspect yourself of error, you have appropriated Exexpat’s comment as your own. Excess ego resulting in paranoia? Truther syndrome.
Thank you Clark. It appears I was wrong. I certainly posted the link in many places including on Facebook. Did you ever respond to it? Why would an animator admit that his graphics were used in the official footage?
I’m starting a new comment to address Clark’s last point because it is getting difficult to reply: “Total resistance” huh? How?! The floor slabs were four inches of lightweight concrete on lightweight steel trusses! They were only designed to support about four times their own weight (as a static load!), but over ten floors’ worth of material fell on them – fell, ie. a dynamic load! Please explain to me how they could have withstood that.”
First of all I don’t know if what you say is correct but think about this Clark. If the inner structure (which probably contained reception areas, offices, lifts and so on, though I don’t know), was structually sound, and the outer structure was structually sound, as claimed in the video I linked earlier which formed the basis of this ongoing discussion, even if there were no “lightweight steel trusses” and instead, say, wooden rafters supporting the floor. What do you think would happen? Exactly. The floors inside the structural uprights would collapse within the framework until the resistance below stopped them, if at all. But the outer and inner framework would remain intact.
Don’t stress the poor guy out, John!
Let’s keep it to ourselves that the floors were really only meringue mixture, to save costs in the building of the tallest structures in the world at that time. The Port Authority crossed their fingers, and hoped no one would notice.
Boy, were they pleased when a sucker (one born every minute, I’ve heard) named ‘Lucky’ Larry (personal friend of Netanyahu who he phoned regularly, as well as friend of the Port Authority boss), decided to buy the condemned Towers (chock-a-block full of asbestos).
Transactions started 6 months before 9/11, finalised 6 weeks before 9/11 – I won’t go into the ‘special clauses’ ‘Lucky’ Larrie got inserted in the insurance policies – they don’t call Larry ‘Lucky’ for nothing!).
Foreknowledge would account for Larry’s ‘luck’, wouldn’t it? You don’t need almost the entire engineering and physics communities, including students and bored retired folk, to be keeping quiet. They don’t all have jobs to protect, and some employers are Truthers anyway.
Ironically, it’s actually Chandler who treats the whole buildings as if they were blocks of meringue, with no floor-slabs, core, perimeter or large internal spaces, in his downward acceleration versus upward reaction argument. If you disagree, please show me how his argument differentiates between the Twin Towers’ actual structure, and a Tower-shaped lump of homogeneous material.
The floors, which weighed about 1,000 tons each, performed an important structural function in keeping the outer supporting columns vertical. If a floor were to collapse or become detached from the columns they would bow. If you’re as good an engineer as you claim you’ll know that once a column has bowed enough that the load is no longer being transferred downwards directly through the column it will it go into bending and fail through buckling quite rapidly at a fraction of the load it was designed to hold when straight and vertical (see Euler for a detailed mathmatical explanation). The idea that the floors on the WTC could fail and leave 80-90 storey high columns still standing is poppycock. They’d buckle and fail under their own weight.
Anyway, it was the columns that failed.
Well, it was failure of columns that started the fall of the sections above the damage zones.
John Goss, I didn’t realise that you didn’t know the overall structure of the Twin Towers. They were a “tube within a tube” design. An outer rectangular-section ‘tube’ of uprights formed the perimeter wall. Coaxially and central to this was another, smaller ‘tube’ which was the core. All around the core, spanning out to the perimeter, were only lightweight floor slabs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangement.svg
On that diagram, on the left pane, the entire yellow area was floor-slab only – no vertical support members at all. All the stairs, elevators, plumbing ducts etc. were in the core. Here are some pictures that show how much open floor space there was, just how far it was between supporting uprights, though they are wide-angle photos, somewhat exaggerating the impression:
http://www.killick1.plus.com/pictures/wtc-interior-1.png
http://www.killick1.plus.com/pictures/wtc-interior-2.png
http://www.killick1.plus.com/pictures/wtc-interior-3.png
It was a clever design, a division of function. All the vertical support was supplied by the uprights ie. the core and the perimeter. The floor slabs didn’t need to support the weight of the building above; each only needed to support its own weight and that floor’s occupants and contents. Consequently, the floor slabs could be lightweight, reducing the overall weight, enabling the buildings to be exceptionally tall.
But the floor-slabs performed another vital function; they held the perimeter laterally, keeping core and perimeter parallel, thus keeping all the downward thrust directly above the bases of the uprights. The uprights supported the floors, and the floors tied the two tubes together every four metre or so, preventing the perimeter and core ‘tubes’ from kinking.
But the top came adrift and, disintegrating, most of it fell into this structure. The floor-slabs supplied some resistance to this falling debris; not nearly enough to stop it falling, but enough to slow its acceleration to about two-thirds of g. So the debris, obstructed, bunched up, consequently pushing sideways as well as downwards, pushing out on the perimeter and in on the core.
But above the debris-front the perimeter no longer had any lateral stabilisation – that had been supplied by the floor-slabs but they had been smashed to rubble moments earlier. So the perimeter uprights were pushed outwards by the accumulating debris, though still held further down, below the debris-front, by floor-slabs that hadn’t yet been smashed. This is what made the perimeter sections ‘peel outward’ in the manner seen on the videos.
The core was sustaining damage in the same way as the perimeter, but the core was the densest, most integrated part of the whole building. Nevertheless, weakened and deprived of the perimeter and the floor-slabs, it was an untenably slender structure, but it did stand for long enough to be seen briefly as the dust dissipated.
Clark: “The floor-slabs supplied some resistance to this falling debris; not nearly enough to stop it falling, but enough to slow its acceleration to about two-thirds of g”
I don’t think even anyone trying to support the non-demolition theory continues to argue that the acceleration wasn’t almost the same as free fall. Where did you get this information from?
I’ve read it in various places, Truther and non-Truther alike. i think I’ve read such a statement from Chandler. 2/3 of g is the approximate acceleration of the collapse front for both of the Twin Towers’ collapses. You can easily see that the collapse front accelerates appreciably slower than g by watching the collapse videos, because you can see free-falling pieces of perimeter that start above the collapse front but overtake it. If you dispute this, please link a video showing otherwise.
Being supercilious in your supposed superior knowledge will not endear you to me, or others I suspect.
“I didn’t realise that you didn’t know . . .” as if to say what an ignoramus I am, when you full-well know that the structure of the twin towers is explained in the video link in this comment.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-96/#comment-626868
Hilarious. No wonder they chucked you out after a year at QMC. It couldn’t have been for excessive narcissism by any chance?
Alex, I find that very hurtful. I was nineteen. Since the age of four I’d been indoctrinated as a Jehovah’s Witness, several times a week. At university I developed a social life of my own, and I gave it more attention than my studies, but beneath that I was still terrified that I was breaking the “true religion”. I could have sat my re-sits, but then the Physics Department posted up a notice with that year’s graduates and the jobs they were going to. Eighty percent were going to high-tech jobs in the “defence” industries, and I decided that the world didn’t need any more physicists.
Alex, I’m sorry you see this as narcissim. John Goss wrote:
– “First of all I don’t know if what you say is correct but think about this Clark. If the inner structure (which probably contained reception areas, offices, lifts and so on, though I don’t know)…”
and so I honestly thought that he didn’t know the structure of the Twin Towers. That knowledge is vital in understanding how the collapses proceeded, so I described the structure and the collapse mechanism.
I’ve read your comments and can see that none of you are engineers. No computer model can be made to work in the way WTC buildings collapsed. Experts and design engineers have tried. Kempe talks about a hobbyist who might be a nice guy even though he is obsessed with trying to prove the official version.
“About the Author
Chris Mohr is a lifelong science hobbyist, the former publisher and editor of the classical radio publication On The Air Magazine, and composer of the opera From The Realm of the Shadow on Naxos Records. He has hiked up 1000 mountains, bicycles 2000 miles per year, enjoys scuba diving and is a classical music and opera fanatic. He has hosted a prison meditation program for 16 years.”
Craig’s own scientific proof comes from. “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.” Pure science that! Did he ask his friend how long it would take if thermite was used? And why was thermite present in the residue? So many unanswered questions and nobody wants an inquiry. Nobody wants to know the truth.
But the truth is not the official version.
” Did he ask his friend how long it would take if thermite was used? ”
Probably not as thermite is not used in demolitions. It’s also an incendiary not an explosive so if it did work it would take a lot longer. If you disagree please provide a list of high rise building demolished with thermite rather than explosives. Because of this there is no body of experience in using thermite in large scale demolitions so to have used it on 9/11 would’ve been a huge experiment and why would the PTB take that risk on such an important project?
And why was thermite present in the residue?
It wasn’t. The constituent parts of thermite were found (well some of them) which would’ve been present in the building anyway.
Keep dreaming Kempe. It is not what the experts say. Nanothermite can be used in demolitions.
Nanothermite hadn’t been developed when the World Trade Center was built.
Look, this may all be pointless, as least concerning the Twin Towers. From what I’ve read of NCSTAR 1, NIST’s proposed collapse initiation sequence should be checkable from recorded visual evidence. If that evidence shows what NIST claim it does, it couldn’t have been done with explosives anyway.
If you lot stop throwing dubious Truther claims and frankly propagandistic YouTube vids around for a while, I think we could check for ourselves, and not have to rely on anyone’s word.
Who’s interested?
I’m not. I’ve already tested your science and found it wanting. I want to know the truth like other real engineers and scientists, even if it shows something unexpected. What we have been told is not the truth, and you amateur believers in US propaganda need to get real.
I suppose the US did not fund ISIS (Daesh)!
You’ve “tested [my] science and found it wanting”, right?
OK, clever man. Tell me, if you were designing a 110 storey building, how many times their own weight should the floor slabs be designed for?
– “I want to know the truth…”
So why avoid the chance to refute NIST’s collapse initiation mechanism?
Know thyself, John.
I’m trying to give certain people the benefit of the doubt: could there possibly be an honourable reason to argue for the official story despite its obvious “shortcomings”, and despite being knowledgeable of the available facts?
For public people like Craig I can understand why he may not wish to be involved in the subject and risk being introduced on TV interviews etc as “9/11 conspiracy theorist” which could detract from his message on other topics.
I can understand people in government and the media who would risk their jobs; people who are paid to post such comments; and even trolls with a warped sense of fun.
But could there be another justifiable reason – like a strategy to keep the number of people who question such topics acceptably low so that there is less of a clamp-down on the alternative media; or to keep the perpetrators sloppy to keep these things easy to spot in the future by those who are interested?
I’d like to think there could be another justification being that the perpetrators made a mistake but they’re long gone now and let’s let the matter lie and move on, but unfortunately that really would be fantasy
You’re calling Craig a liar, right? You’re calling me a liar too, right?
You, an anonymous internet entity, are calling me and Craig, who do not conceal our identities, liars, yes?
So now I’m calling you a troll, OK? 🙂 You can stop being a troll any time you like, but it’s up to YOU; not me, or Craig, or anyone else. You, and you alone.
On Saudi Arabia’s payroll, are you? Oh I doubt it; you’re just another troll, doing it for your own personal gratification.
Get this once and for all. I DO NOT COVER UP FOR MASS MURDER.
Most people I know probably believe the government/mass media story and they are not liars as they have not given much thought to it, or opened their minds to any other possibility. This was also me for a long time. I personally don’t see how people who have researched or read and watched much of the significant available analysis could still believe the story. And I am interested in all the possible motivations for spending so much effort defending it, and wonder if all reasons are necessarily bad. Telling your partner that her butt doesn’t look big in that dress may not be honest, but may not be bad either.
Whether someone wishes to label me as a troll should not depend on whether I am anonymous, but more to do with sincerity I would say.
No, Uzmark, stop wiggling. You accused me, and Craig and Kempe of dishonesty. “Trying to give us the benefit of the doubt”, as if disbelieving demolition were some sort of moral indicator.
And you need to look beyond yes/no, either/or. Neither me nor Craig defend “the official story” (which you are yet to define and which I suspect you do not even know). Personally, I very much doubt demolition of the Twin Towers, and I don’t dismiss the violence of religious extremists.
I doubt demolition of the Twin Towers because it doesn’t fit the observations, and I criticise “Truther physics” because my own ability in physics shows it to be utter bunk.
You also ridiculed me repeatedly; “You’re a card, Clark” – again, impugning my honesty.
Another reason I expose Truther “physics” is because it’s encouraging people like you to bark up the wrong tree.
Clark: “You also ridiculed me repeatedly; “You’re a card, Clark” – again, impugning my honesty”
No that was someone else, and I seem to recall the card they suggested was the Joker
Uzmark, I’m sorry. Yes, you’re right. Sorry.
” I’m trying to give certain people the benefit of the doubt: ”
Very decent of you I’m sure but have you stopped to consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, people believe the official story because it’s the only one that makes logical sense and which stands up to scientific scrutiny? Truthers will focus on what they believe to be its shortcomings but then refuse to discuss the glaring shortcomings in their own theories, how thermite could behave like an explosive for example, and resort to the low tactic of ad hominem attacks.
Kempe, beware; you slipped into polarisation there. So far as I’m aware, demolition or otherwise is no part of “the official story”. There are an infinite number of things that “the official story” does not propose; demolition is just one arbitrary member of that infinite set.
Thermite is not an explosive, but nanothermite is an explosive:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html
Everybody who has looked into this subject should be fully aware of that FACT.
Well if we regard nanothermite as an explosive it completely undermines AE911. Explosives wouldn’t have created even small quantities of molten steel let alone the tons they claim. They can’t have it both ways, either explosives which they think are needed to explain the rapid collapse or incendiaries to produce the molten steel. There’s no practical argument for using both so which is it going to be?
Kempe, well said; you beat me to it while I was writing other comments.
Time. With an explosive reaction, there isn’t time for sufficient heat transfer to account for melted steel.
This is similar to the “lack of explosive sounds” problem.
If the collapses of the Twin Towers would have been arrested by the structure, as demolition theorists claim, sequenced destruction of the structure would have been required to produce the appearance of a gravity-driven collapse. But there was no corresponding sequence of explosive sounds. Thermite can cut without explosive sounds, but does so too slowly for accurately sequenced destruction.
If it doesn’t look like a duck, doesn’t quack like a duck, and would have required a small army to supply a duck, maybe it isn’t a duck.
But it doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny
Precisely what “doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny”?
Acceptance or rejection of demolition theories is not even a political issue, much less a moral one. It’s a matter of science, reason and rationality.
The official ‘investigators’ admitted not even testing for explosive use, which is a CRIME as it is mandatory in collapses where they may have been used.
You, of course, know better than 2,500 + Certified Architects and Engineers; do you think they joined the group just to have a laugh, and to prove what idiots they were – or do you think they believe what they claim?
The world awaits your peer-reviewed exposure of their idiocy, but would be rather foolish to hold their breath….
You just can’t resist fighting, can you? You’re so emotionally attached to demolition, and to the camaraderie your belief brings; automatic approval from other demolition theorists, regardless of what lies they tell, what distortions they propagate; regardless that their other beliefs about 9/11 may be entirely contradictory to your own.
If conclusive disproof of demolition were presented, I strongly suspect you’d feel appalled and furious. On the other hand, if conclusive proof of demolition were presented, I think you’d feel truly delighted.
Demolition, demolition, demolition – to the exclusion of all other aspects and implications of 9/11. For you, 9/11 is demolition, nothing more, and you refuse to look at anything that might contradict that.
You’re so incensed that “they demolished Building 7” that you think it killed the people whose bodies Jennings may have stepped over, four hours before the building came down! If you can’t recognise the symptoms of your own irrationality, there’s no hope for you.
I request explanations as to why arguing against demolition is taken as support of “the official story”.
I also request a definition of “the official story”. Note I’m requesting a definition, not a description.
Can’t the official story of 9/11 be defined as the story presented by the 9/11 Commission Report?
Even the Chairman and Co-Chairman said the Commission was ‘set up up fail’:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/06/do-we-need-another-911-conspiracy-theory/
‘….A number of excuses were given by Commission members for the shortcomings of its report. In their 2006 book, Without Precedent, the leaders of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, said “we were set up to fail.”[3] When I met with Hamilton, he told me that the Commission faced too many questions, too little funding, and too little time…..’
Of course the 9/11 Commission’s report is very far from the truth, but I think it can be called the official account.
Lysias, I’d accept that as a partial definition. There is also the Congressional Report (I think), and there may be others that I haven’t heard of.
The verbose minutia about demolition is a distraction from the endgamers.
The Status-Quo love the infighting. It gives them air for future treachery.
Who among us wishes to extend the benefit? Who is more exercised over the means rather than circumventing the end? These questions need to be asked.
Nice Words Ben
Who is using Hunger as a weapon.. Too Many So called Governments.
P.S I spent Friggin Hours trying to find what that bike is…then Forget about the First of ze Month Hicup Agghhh
Ben and Brian, good to see you here.
squonk.tk is up and running again.
There’s so much suspicion on this thread. I’ve not been up long, maybe I’m having impractical ideas, but maybe I should try and arrange an outing and meet-up, maybe human values need some nourishment. I think Paul Barbara is around my way; if he fancies a trip to Scotland I could collect him, maybe see John Goss on the way, maybe Node would meet us at the Northern end of our excursion. The ones who distrust my physics could set me a paper or even a practical.
Ben, the distance imposes too great an expense, but you and Trowbridge might be able to work something out between you.
@ Clark October 1, 2016 at 08:31
Thanks for the offer, but as we cannot come anywhere near agreement on here, I’m sure we couldn’t in Scotland either.
But you might at least learn enough of me to assure others that I’m not some astroturfing secret agent or whatever.
Paul
That sounded like a good idea..i bet Even Craig would show up..as would I..And Nevermind Loves Scotland too
I have met Clark, and Lived with him for over a week.. i loved our night sky teachings just by the camp fire
All wars (including ‘WMD’ Iraq and ‘R2P’ Libya), interventions, Regime Changes and internal crackdowns (Patriot Act etc.) since 9/11 have been done under the 9/11 ‘Umbrella’.
By exposing the lies as to who perpetrated the attacks (as, for instance, controlled demolition rather than planes and fires bringing the Twin Towers and Bldg. 7 down) would of course make new False Flag attacks harder to pull off; though of course, 9/11 itself cannot be ‘circumvented’, as it has already happened.
That comment was in answer to Ben.
But the same policies were being pursued decades before 9/11. 9/11 enabled the intensity to be increased, but it didn’t change anything fundamental…
…and actually, that’s the problem. In anything approaching an honest media environment, 9/11 should have stimulated a public backlash against covert US exploitation of Saudi-inspired extremism. But the Western governments and media successfully diverted attention onto “Islam” for the majority, and a sizeable minority do nothing but argue over “demolition” – both are distractions, and the latter may be a deliberate ploy as much as the former (yes I am even more paranoid than demolition theorists).
If we’re taking the 9/11 Commission Report as “the official story”, I doubt it said anything about Iraq. The Bush Administration tacked Iraq on completely opportunistically. They had to manufacture the fake informant “Curveball”, but that didn’t fool anyone.
The real work has been done by the 9/11 Families who have persisted in their quest.
Talking in circles about who did it from an armchair is merely masturbatory.
Paul Barbara and John Goss, I’d understand if you’re pissed off with me, but the true friend is the one who isn’t so afraid of your reaction that he won’t tell you when he sees some shit on your shoes. Detractors will claim there’s shit when there isn’t, but I think I’ve provided samples. Your spirit is admirable but your targeting’s lousy.
– “but your targeting’s lousy”… This thread’s a veritable friendly-fire fest.
Maybe I’ll service my central heating boiler today.
The dark ejections leading the collapse front as the Towers collapsed – demolition proponents say they were explosive blasts; the gravity driven collapse explanation says they’re dust and debris driven by air being expelled.
Can anyone explain to me how they could have been absent? If they hadn’t been produced, where could the air have been going?
(I predict that this question will be ignored by all proponents of demolition)
There was a big hole in the building you numpty.
But the hole was above the collapse front; which was proceeding downwards. Your argument is like saying that an internal combustion engine can’t work because the cylinder is open at the opposite end from the cylinder head.
You really should stop exposing your stupidity. Where were the piston rings in the buildings if you want to use this analogy?
Alex, you could try some maths. Space was being filled with rubble at a certain rate – that was the case whether you invoke explosives or not. From the videos estimate the velocity of the collapse front, and from that and the dimensions of the buildings calculate the volume of air displaced per second. Can you imagine this much office space being filled with a plummeting pile of rubble in a fraction of a second?
http://www.killick1.plus.com/pictures/wtc-interior-2.png
But you reckon all the air would have gone upwards, do you? Against that storming hail of masonry a dozen storeys deep? OK, if you say so; I don’t want to look stupid, after all 🙂
And remember, the rubble doesn’t land; in less than an eye-blink what had been the ceiling smashes the room’s contents straight through the floor. By then most of the air had gone.
I am puzzled, nothing unusual about that.
US initially blamed Al-Q then resident in Afghanistan and invaded.
The Bush gov then blamed Iraq (wholly implausibly) and invaded.
Now we have this new US law which infers Saudi responsibility. Obama opposes the law but not because he says it wasn’t Saudi . Instead the reason he gives is that he is concerned America may be sued for its.”work” abroad. No one suggested that the law allow US citizens to sue any State that they are able to prove was responsible. Therefore without fanfare the US appears to have implicitly blamed Saudi. Why?
What comes next?
fwl
Exellent Question
What happens next.. Sadly..Tearfully.. some can see it..Just waiting to happen
Donald Trump said he’d publish the redacted sections of the 9/11 Commission Report were he to be elected President. This caused the Democrat Administration to publish them, to nullify the bribe Trump was offering to the voters. The formerly redacted pages implicated Saudi Arabia (as was widely expected). 9/11 victims’ families now had the evidence they needed, but were prevented from suing by the law in question, which was subsequently changed, presumably to prevent a public backlash. Obama presumably spoke out against this change in the law in order to mollify the Saudis.
Next? I expect that compensation to the families will be settled out of court, or maybe the families will sue. Either way, I expect the US will secretly compensate the Saudi defendants, quite possibly with discounts on US supplied armaments. Money and/or weapons will circulate but little is likely to change. The US will continue to sponsor Saudi-inspired extremists because doing so has been a key element of their covert policy to dominate the Middle East for at least half a century.
It’s macabre, and of course I deplore the immediate killings and the excuses for killings which it spawned, but I admit to finding it amusing…
The Great Twin Phalluses of the Global Capitalist Empire, detumefying before our eyes. Apparently the greatest erections of their era they were in fact less potent than they looked, and when penetrated themselves proved unsupportable. How symbolic.
But no! Demolition theorists to the rescue! The capitalists work was strong, near invincible, and not vulnerable to a handful of the Great Fucker’s desperate victims. No, it took attack from within, with the high-tech military grade poison called nanothermite to deflate the Twin Todgers, nothing less could possibly be consistent with the laws of physics.
The WTC was obviously built to self-destruct when sufficiently damaged.
Escrow for WTC closed in April with insurance policy which when paid on claim, exceeded the mortgage. And we all thought one couldn’t profit from insurance.
Trowbridge, effectively, yes, but presumably just to keep building costs down. This quote is from the trade journal Fire Engineering:
– “The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings’ fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions… The destruction and removal of evidence must stop completely.”
The original is behind a paywall, but that quote and more can be found here:
http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html
Interestingly, US law was changed before the NIST investigation was begun:
– “5. When did the investigation begin and when was it completed?
The investigation was officially announced on Aug. 21, 2002. When the NCST Act was passed in October of that year, it required that the WTC investigation be conducted under its authorities.”
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
– “The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, […] has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions”
That documentation was eventually supplied to NIST, but only under non-disclosure agreements:
– “Disclaimer No. 3
Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is “not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).
In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been
provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.
From NIST NCSTAR 1 – Indeed, the very first page with any information on it. Note the invocation of the tailor-made 2002 law. Compelled by that new law, NIST disguised and played down the deficiencies of the buildings, and all these foolish demolition theorists are helping, too.
This blacksmith makes me smile. Watch the video! He gets a very small length of steel, doesn’t mention what grade, levers up his anvil with it through a hole, then gets an similar steel length which has been firing in his furnace for nobody knows how long at 200 degrees more than that at which aircraft fuel burns. Then by applying force to the red-hot steel he bends the bar and concludes that it proves that the twin towers buckled due to ignited aircraft fuel.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/212192-2/212192/
It is of course nonsense. To begin with he should have put his anvil in the furnace to get a nearer example to the width of the girders. He would still be waiting today to get it to any pliable state. A proper engineer in an impartial experiment would not heat the metal to a higher temperature than that which would have been achievable from ignited aircraft fuel. Though it does bring a smile to my face.
How to convince non-engineers I do not know. I will try even though I am convinced the 9/11 twin-towers collapses could not have happened without structural damage to the base. It is absolutely impossible. But assuming that the impossible was possible and the girders on the floors hit by the aircraft (if they ever were hit by aircraft) buckled under the heat. It would only buckle the girders on those floors.
In terms of weight addition very little would be added to the massive weight already supported by the floors below with the addition of, say, even a Jumbo Jet, I suspect. Much of the fuel would be consumed initially in the burning up of the plane’s infrastructure which would lighten the weight by gaseous burn-off. To achieve furnace temperatures coals are heated with the heat concentrated in the coals and the metal inserted at the hot point. Air is introduced from below, and I agree air could been sucked up from the heat above in the twin towers case. The downside is there would have been no crucible (all the windows would have blown) and the concentration of heat would have been lost. Think of a pot-bellied stove, or any cast iron stove and you will get the picture.
While thinking about this I also thought back to my thesis on Midland novelist Robert Bage who was also a paper-mill owner. His eldest son Charles was a wine-merchant, surveyor and later a pioneer in structural steel. He designed the oldest steel-structured building in England which still stands today and is a listed building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditherington_Flax_Mill
His father was a supporter of equal-rights, education for the poor, an end to the dowry system, an end to duelling, an end to slavery. In other words a thoroughly decent man who might be likened to Jeremy Corbyn in his decency and integrity. He also took maths lessons and was close to people of the Lunar Society: Matthew Boulton, Erasmus Darwin (very close) and the Midland’s enlightenment in general.
I tell you all this because Charles Bage was aware of the dangers from fire which was quite commonplace at eighteenth century mills, especially paper mills, where a careless person could bring down the whole mill.
Getting back to the blacksmith’s little length of steel, which I suspect was no more than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm approx) in diameter, yes applying force and leverage could get the metal to bend (not break though). Until people start to argue the toppling of the twin towers (and in particular WTC7) were bottom-down demolitions I cannot give any credibility to their arguments. Anything else does not make sense. That is final.
John, what can I say? Read NCSTAR 1. The engineers at NIST have a message for fellow engineers.
Read the disclaimers, too – they put them at the very start. I’m very impressed with what NIST have managed to do. There were accusations that they were politically silenced from making, inferences that were politically prevented from expressing. They operated under a brand new law, probably enacted specifically to muzzle them.
But writing as engineers, they succeed in imparting not only the physical shortcomings of the Towers, but also the restrictions their investigation was conducted under.
Do them the respect of reading their report before criticising further.
The US is all upside-down. The foremost public body of engineers shouldn’t have to tip-toe over eggshells to keep things sweet with the corporations.
The 9/11 commission were set up to fail, and NIST were instructed not to blame anyone. Craig had it right all along.
The whistleblowers that were truly working within the system – Colleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, Michael Springmann, probably Susan Lindaeur – the things they claim to have witnessed directly as part of their work all support the position Craig advanced in this post. I think people tend to forget his penultimate sentence:
– “…I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors”
He’s very clever, our Craig. Whenever I’ve seriously disagreed with him, it has turned that he was right.
Yes, well, science is science, and physics is physics, and structural engineering design incorporates both. Neither you nor Craig nor NIST can rewrite the textbooks on this.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/07/why-the-nist-report-on-the-world-trade-center-towers-is-false/
John, from large compilations of photographs and videos, NIST claims to have established the following observations of deterioration of the buildings shortly before each collapse. From NCSTAR 1 table 6-2 on page 87:
————————-
WTC 2:
9:21: Inward bowing of exterior wall columns on most of the east face from floors 78 to 83; maximum extent: 7 in. to 9 in. at floor 80.
9:58:59: First exterior sign of collapse (downward movement of building exterior). The northeast corner tilted counterclockwise around the base of floor 82. Column buckling was then seen progressing across the north face and nearly simultaneously on the east face.
WTC 1:
10:23: Inward bowing of perimeter columns on the east side of the south face from floors 94 to 100; maximum extent: 55 in. ± 6 in. at floor 97.
————————-
You either have to show those observations to be false, or explain how the effects observed could have been produced on demand. Other arguments can be traded until the cows come home, but this buckling is the crux of NIST’s proposed collapse initiation mechanism, and I don’t see how the claimed effects could have been produced by either thermite or explosives.
Overall collapse beyond initiation requires no great deal of explanation, no matter what a former water quality inspector may claim. Any sensible consideration of the structures makes that as obvious as a broken timing belt leading to mashed valves and pistons.
Incidentally, do you still think the great holes in the buildings were somehow made by holograms, and as an engineer, can you explain the mechanics behind that?
What you do not appear to have grasped Clark is the physical impossibility of anything happening above the area of impact on the floors below. Could not happen. That domino effect they talk about is a scientific impossibility. There is a theory about the bowing but that has to do with the girders having been weakened before the incident by those who had access to the building. That we will probably never know.
Regardless there is no way the floors below would have pancaked in on each other. It is not physics. It could not happen.
John Goss, is the bowing and buckling just a theory, then? In NCSTAR 1, NIST claim that it was observable.
” That domino effect they talk about is a scientific impossibility. ”
How can you say that when I’ve posted up videos of it actually happening?
Here is another example for you to ignore or try and explain away.
http://www.failedarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/original-830×1137.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o
Kempe, I have watched the video and it is interesting. The top sections do indeed appear to stay intact.
There are some questions that I am not qualified to make an opinion on eg the comparative construction techniques, and the fact that they have always chosen the mid-point of the building to collapse which some Youtube comments say reinforces the Newton’s 3rd law thinking.
However:
To me it doesn’t explain for example the “puffs” visible in the twin towers because all the dust ejections are at the same floor which is collapsing, not 4 floors below, and they are not neat single isolated puffs.
And, It is quite clear that if the initial collapsing floor is not dropped perfectly uniformly across, the collapse would be asymmetric.
Also, of course we still have the multiple prior explosions at the WTC (which still could have been to weaken key points in advance), and the fact that WT7 should not have come down at all, let alone symmetrically and with proven prior knowledge.
The video could actually reinforce the controlled demolition argument: if this technique was available and was the easiest way to do it, then presumably that’s how they would have done it. Maybe it could have spared them the need to time detonations one floor at a time to match the falling block, also the need for so many miles of cabling (per Craig’s mate).
Uzmark, there are some remarks I could add to some of those points, but you addressed your comment to Kempe and I don’t want to seem interfering.
Clark, feel free, I mentioned Kempe because he posted the video
The Twin Tower collapses were somewhat asymmetric, but you have to watch several videos to see that. Of course, only two faces of a building can be seen at once, and some videos capture two faces where the collapse front remained pretty much horizontal as it proceeded downwards. But on other videos you can see where parts of start to it get well ahead, but then it gets obscured by dust.
On less tall buildings the asymmetry would have looked a lot more obvious, but the Twin Towers were huge; the wide-angle shots needed to fit them into the frame reduce the scale by a factor of hundreds making the collapse fronts look fairly even. It’s on zoomed-in shots where the asymmetry is more clearly visible.
The prior knowledge – or rather foreboding – of Building 7’s collapse came from Fire Department personnel, who had just witnessed the death of their chief and hundreds of their colleagues in the collapses of the Twin Towers. Some repeatedly defied orders to evacuate the area around Building 7 because they were searching for their colleagues in the rubble. They did this despite Building 7 creaking, bulging and leaning:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage
Clark 12:53
You didn’t answer many of the points, and I would say that the taller he building the more pronounced the asymmetric effect would be as it would get exaggerated over the longer distance.
The prior knowledge by the police outside WTC7 was that it was going to “blow up”. Nobody should have anticipated that from simple fires and the damage that had been sustained
Uzmark, there was only a narrow window for any asymmetry to become pronounced; the collapse couldn’t exceed g. More later.
Uzmark, I know there are videos of emergency service personnel shouting that Building 7 was going to explode or whatever. I think tensions were running pretty high. You referred to the hijackers as “patsies” but you didn’t literally mean they were all called Patsy. Firefighters, at least one journalist, maybe other people too were not leaving the area. Emergency personnel wanted people to get clear. I think the most likely explanation for those remarks was simply nerves and exaggeration; people aren’t robots, they get worked up.
But I always consider the converse too. If those emergency personnel really had been warning that Building 7 was literally about to be exploded, there would have been no reason to cover it up later. It’s not like anyone was hurt or killed in Building 7’s collapse. And anyway, when it came down it didn’t blow up.
Regarding your questions arising from Kempe’s vérinage demolition video:
Ejections (they’re much too big for me to call them “puffs”) – the floor slabs were so thin, lightweight and wide-area compared to the huge quantity of rubble crashing down on them. The entire buildings in those vérinage demolitions are comparable with just the parts of the Twin Towers that started to fall. The ejections don’t get several floors ahead until the collapse front has progressed considerably further down. By then, the relatively fragile floors would have been getting smashed through well in advance of the far more massive perimeter sections being pushed out. Try imagining the huge falling (and accelerating and accumulating) debris pile contained (and hidden) by the perimeter, and what you can see starts to make sense.
Vérinage initiated at the mid point – Actually, Newton’s action-reaction law can only be applied to very simple systems; it deals with just two forces at a time, not thousands of bodies moving and colliding chaotically (this is also why Chandler’s original “downward acceleration” paper is so wrong). Two-body problems are soluble, but even the three-body problem is famous for being an utter bitch, as any snooker player can attest (commentator – “yes, I think the balls are touching”).
But if you drop something heavy enough onto something else, you can destroy them both. In vérinage demolition, the mid point is the obvious place to go for, especially in less tall buildings; it’s intuitively obvious but I haven’t yet thought of a way prove it. Basically, for complete destruction, you want neither too little falling material (break point too high) nor too little distance to fall (break point too low). The Twin Towers were tall enough to satisfy both those conditions across a wide range of break points.
Explosions pre-collapse – Yes, there were lots of reports of explosions or explosive noises in the Twin Towers after the impacts but prior to the collapses. Maybe there were planted bombs, but that is in no way similar to tightly sequenced explosions from hundreds of pre-rigged charges necessary to simulate gravity-driven top-down collapses. Fire can make all sorts of things explode or seem to – aerosol canisters in people’s desks, batteries, oil-filled transformers, fuel tanks of vehicles in the sub-levels, even elevator carriages and counterweights falling due to broken cables or pulleys. Occam’s razor – there’s no need to speculate that the buildings needed to be weakened in advance, because in any case they could never have withstood the hail of tens of thousands of tonnes of debris from a great height when the top sections disintegrated and fell onto the rest beneath.
WTC7 – Yeah, it shouldn’t have suddenly just completely collapsed like that, and you shouldn’t get seventeen million hits when you Google “corruption New York construction”.
Final paragraph – This is an unnecessary argument; why postulate a demolition conspiracy at all? It’s like the anti-lion powder which I sprinkle in Hyde Park every morning. You may say “but there aren’t any lions in Hyde Park”, but that’s because of my anti-lion powder!
I’ve said for ages that if someone wanted to ensure the complete destruction of the Twin Towers after aircraft strike but make it look like gravity-driven collapses, the surest and easiest way wouldn’t be explosives, but to just add lots of weight near the top of each building. Both scenarios have a problem, though. If one of the aircraft hadn’t got to its target for whatever reason, the weights or the explosives would have still been there and someone would have had a lot of explaining to do.
I’m surprised, that Clark didn’t post that before you, as verifiable proof that the NIST Commissions’ conclusions were correct.
Alex, I don’t rely on others. I can reason and do physics for myself, if you hadn’t noticed.
Oh and it wasn’t the “NIST Commission”; it wasn’t set up just to investigate 9/11. It was NIST, originally the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) set up in 1901, renamed to NIST in 1988.