- This topic has 424 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
His final peer reviewed report on the collapse of the 47 story, steel framed skyscraper WTC 7 at 5:20pm on the evening of 9/11/2001 has now been published by Professor Leroy Hulsey, head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Professor Hulsey also has an established reputation in the US as a forensic engineer.
Professor Hulsey’s report concludes after a 4 year investigation that ordinary office fires could not have brought down WTC 7 as was proposed by the USA’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) after NIST completed their own investigation. The NIST fire induced collapse theory laid out in their final report was accepted by the US government as a logical and satisfactory explanation for the building’s collapse.
Prof. Hulsey’s investigation shows the NIST isolated “office fire” scenario on a few floors could not have produced an almost simultaneous failure of all the building’s structural columns as his team found would be necessary for the building to collapse as it did, i.e. symmetrically, straight down and mostly into its own footprint in only 6 to 7 seconds (including a 2.25 to 2.5 second period of absolute freefall, downwards acceleration).
WTC 7 Not Destroyed by Fire, Concludes Final University of Alaska Fairbanks Report
The destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to the much-anticipated final report issued today by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire.
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”
Read more here with links to download the report: https://www.ae911truth.org/news/656-wtc-7-not-destroyed-by-fire-concludes-final-university-of-alaska-fairbanks-report
Thanks for the update, Silvio, and your perseverance in keeping the subject alive on this blog.
I must admit, at one point I didn’t think the report would ever be made final. I thought <i>they</i> would get to him, or perhaps his students who are risking their careers by collaborating on this. Perhaps it’s only a professor nearing the end of his career, and students before they have families, who can afford to put integrity before security. Thanks to all who helped or supported the study.
What will this final report bring about? Nothing in the short term – the MSM will ignore it. But in the long term enquiring minds can no longer be deflected by the usual accusations: conspiracy theorists and amateur scientists. This report hastens the day when it is no longer credible to pretend to believe the official 9/11 line; when it is generally accepted that the world was hoaxed on 9/11. And that in turn will make it more difficult to pull the same stunt again.
MODS: A PLEA. Craig has expressed a desire to provide space for 9/11 discussion. Whatever your beliefs on the topic, it is obviously historically important. Two previous threads on the subject have been sabotaged. Please protect this thread like you would do any other.
Node, I resent the accusation that I sabotaged previous threads. I was the moderator who repeatedly reopened comments on Craig’s original 9/11 Post. The blatant anti-Semite Dave did most to disrupt Silvio’s UAF forum, but you have had not a single word of criticism for Dave, only for me; according to you, it was disruptive of me to defend myself against his bigoted personal attacks.
WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6 to 7 seconds; you only get that figure by excluding the collapse of the east penthouse. The overall collapse took 18 to 19 seconds.
Free-fall requires that no forces act upon a body other than gravity. WTC7 was never in free-fall.
For over two seconds, WTC7’s outer shell and roofline accelerated downward at around g, the acceleration due to gravity, but this does not imply free-fall and is essentially a coincidence; the roof and shell of buildings subjected to known demolition typically accelerate at well under g precisely because the dismembered debris is NOT in free-fall; the dismembered parts are frantically colliding with each other, converting some of the available gravitational potential energy into the characteristic roar and pulverising much material.
WTC7 was never in free-fall even according to the UAF Report. The UAF simulation requires that for symmetrical collapse, all perimeter columns had to be severed 1.3 seconds after all the core columns; the forces between internal components of WTC7 were necessary for producing a symmetrical collapse in the simulation. Therefore, internal forces were acting in addition to gravity, therefore no free-fall.
My suspicion is that WTC7 was subject to emergency demolition, planned, rigged and executed on the afternoon of 9/11. Here is Dutch demolition designer the late Danny Jowenko discussing this possibility, and the possible reasons an emergency demolition might have been kept secret.
I have always believed that many buildings were rigged for controlled demolition before 911. The reason I feel was that there was intelligence of this type of attack , but nothing specific. I do not believe that grounding all airlines was ever an option and so measures were taken so that if an attack of this sort were to occur it would be possible as a last resort to prevent one of these buildings falling sideways and taking out half of New York.This is just a theory but if true I have nothing but sympathy for anyone touched by this diabolical attack. P.
I disagree profoundly with this whole comment, but I am puzzled by the opening line of
“For over two seconds, WTC7’s outer shell and roofline accelerated downward at around g, the acceleration due to gravity, but this does not imply free-fall and is essentially a coincidence”
Can you explain what you mean by this? I mean if you say it was falling at free fall speed but wasn’t in free fall, then what was causing it to coincidentally travel at that speed?
Yes, it happened to fall at an acceleration that roughly matched g for 2.25 seconds. If you look at Chandler’s Tracker plots, you’ll see that they actually exceed g for some time*, which disproves free-fall; some additional downward force must have been acting upon the outer shell of the building.
If you watch the collapse videos you’ll see a very likely reason for that additional force; as the east penthouse falls through the roofline, an increase in daylight through the structure beneath can be observed. Pretty obviously, the building’s core under the penthouse dropped first, such that the horizontal connections were pulling down upon the outer shell.
* Chandler dismisses such variations as measurement error, but the smoothness of his graph suggests it’s pretty accurate.
– “what was causing it to coincidentally travel at that speed?”
By definition, coincidence doesn’t have a cause; it’s “just coincidence”.
g and free-fall are not remotely similar. Free-fall is a physical condition, whereas g is an engineering constant. The half mile to the shop is just a measurement; it is not the walk.
I can’t imagine how you disagree that the overall collapse took 18-19 seconds; it’s all captured in the video I linked, you’d have to ignore the fall of the east penthouse. And there are videos on YouTube which show WTC7’s collapse side-by-side with known demolitions. At first glance they appear to accelerate identically, but look closer and you’ll see that the zoom has been scaled to make the accelerations match, and WTC7 falls through more storeys in the same time than the demolitions which it is being compared with. Since Chandler measured WTC7 to fall at near g, the known demolitions must be accelerating at less than g, and that is precisely what you’d expect because of the deformation and pulverisation of the materials and the dissipation of energy in the form of sound. Demolitions fall slower than g, so the entire “g must mean free-fall” argument is invalid.
Dangerous, Craig, dangerous.
Craig has nothing to do with this thread and probably hasn’t even seen it; this one was started by Silvio, I started the one before, and Silvio started the one before that, the first of the UAF Report threads.
But what danger are you warning Craig about?
Clark, read the report. Otherwise, you’re not only lying to yourself, you’re lying to others.
I am aware of what a coincidence is. I asked what cause it to collapse at the same speed as freefall, with an eyebrow raised at the unlikely coincidence of it.
However, I asked one question and your lengthy reply talked around many other things and did not answer the question. I won’t try to ask again.
J, I have read the report (have you?). I think it quite likely that WTC7 was subjected to emergency demolition, rigged on the afternoon of 9/11. The report has much interesting information eg. the court cases and the wildly uneven distribution of loads on the columns (crap design), but also some serious problems, eg. UAF worked from the plans, and without the building debris you can’t prove that the building conformed to the plans; WTC7 might even have been missing some critical components.
Geoff, I answered. WTC7’s outside and roof fell faster than a typical controlled demolition because the core fell first and pulled the shell down after it.
And J, I don’t lie. If I get facts wrong I acknowledge and correct. I wish the same could be said of others.
Oops, I posted my reply in the wrong place. Reposting here…
J, I have read the report (have you?). I think it quite likely that WTC7 was subjected to emergency demolition, rigged on the afternoon of 9/11. The report has much interesting information eg. the court cases and the wildly uneven distribution of loads on the columns (crap design), but also some serious problems, eg. UAF worked from the plans, and without the building debris you can’t prove that the building conformed to the plans; WTC7 might even have been missing some critical components.
The coincidence isn’t particularly unlikely. The acceleration had to pass through g if it exceeded g. Check Chandler’s graph; the match with g isn’t particularly close, over time.
Geoff, I posted my reply to you in the wrong place too; sorry. Reposting here:
Geoff, I answered. WTC7’s outside and roof fell faster than a typical controlled demolition because the core fell first and pulled the shell down after it.
– “One reason our fine fraternity has controlled the world for hundreds of years is that we’ve managed to make “conspiracy theories” look stupid. You know how often you’ve ever heard someone suggest that possibility? None. You know why? Because it would be a conspiracy theory.”:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hkBp6a5RCDNedo6Wy/the-9-11-meta-truther-conspiracy-theory
And J, I don’t lie.
You appeared to have ignored the report completely when constructing your alternative theories or responding to other comments. If you hadn’t read the report but judged it to be wrong anyway, I’d call that lying.
If I get facts wrong I acknowledge and correct. I wish the same could be said of others.
Feel free to correct me if you have anything on your mind. I recall you accused me of being anti-Semitic not that long ago, I think because I refused to go along with your fit of hysteria over the propaganda campaign against Corbyn, but I’m sure you have something very specific in mind. I’d be obliged if you could clear the air.
J, I have read the report (have you?).
Yes Clark. I read both the draft and the final report on the day each was released. I’ve been looking at all the available evidence more or less since 9/11 happened. I’ve committed to what can be proven through evidence though I’m fairly open minded about other evidence which can’t easily prove anything, even though I don’t insist upon inclusion in my canon of evidence. What remains is complicated and hard to accept, but provable.
The batshit crazy theories have always had short shrift with me and have never been part of the puzzle but continue to be what is most often cited by alleged critics, suggesting that many so called critics don’t actually seem to know what they’re arguing against. I know we all seem credulous at best or malicious at worst, you’ve said as much in general terms, so can I ask you, do you have a theory which explains why the Bobby McIlvaine, the first victim of 9/11 was already dead before flight eleven hit WTC 1 at 8:46:26 a.m? He died outside WTC 1 as he approached the lobby when the front of the building exploded outward killing him instantly.
Bobby McIlvaine Act News Conference – September 11, 2017 – AE911Truth (Youtube)
and
First Responders Urge 9/11 Investigation — Sept. 11, 2019 Press Conference – AE911Truth (Youtube)
Confirmatory video that this explosion occurred can be seen in the Naudet brothers film where extensive destruction of the lobby of building 1 is clearly visible.
Jules Naudet Full Footage From 9/11: WTC 1 Lobby – owensanto4004K (Youtube)
Confirmatory evidence of explosions before the impact of planes is also available in the testimony of numerous survivors, particularly from the sub basement levels of WTC 1:
William Rodriguez, B level 1
Rosie O’Donnell and 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez – OneoftheImmortals (Youtube)
and
Marlene Cruz, elevator between sub basement levels
Carpenter Marlene Cruz Survives Explosions in WTC Basement – Ferk Akte (Youtube)
I think it quite likely that WTC7 was subjected to emergency demolition, rigged on the afternoon of 9/11.
Exactly the kind of baseless theorising you claim to abhor, but I’ll play. As far as I’m aware you haven’t accepted the idea of demolition until now so that’s a step forward.
I’m curious, what evidence have you seen to suggest there was an ’emergency demolition’ and do you have any precedent for such a thing? Is it possible to carry out what could fairly be characterised as a flawless demolition, exactly as observed and do it within hours? Was there a demolition team on hand? In a burning building? Surrounded by mountains of rubble? With the lobby of WTC 7 filled with dead and dying according to witnesses? And with stairwells blown away by explosions according to other witnesses? Presumably you’re aware such work usually requires months, sometimes many months of preparation?
Are you aware of any ’emergency demolition’ on this scale having taken place anywhere ever? It must be:
1. of comparable size
2. planned and implemented with comparable speed
3. of comparable complexityIf there were an ’emergency demolition’ why would NIST falsify their own report in order to claim that fire collapsed the building? If it were all as innocent as your conjecture, what would they have to gain by tarnishing their reputation as badly as they have?
Why would a former NIST employee feel compelled to investigate his own organisations WTC7 report if everything were as innocent as you claim?
The only person in any position of authority in relation to 9/11 to appear to suggest such a thing was owner of WTC 1,2 and 4,5, Larry Silverstein, his notorious ‘so we decided to pull it’ remark, which he later denied referred to demolition. Presumably you’re referring to this?
Can you explain why your theory of an ad hoc demolition makes more sense rather than less?
The report has much interesting information eg. the court cases and the wildly uneven distribution of loads on the columns (crap design)
You’re an architect? My layman’s understanding is that it was the best engineering solution for the required building in the space available. I haven’t heard it characterised as ‘crap design’ by anyone before. It did its job exactly as designed, and in fact it was over designed as the report also points out. In any case, the profile of the building further proves that near symmetrical collapse, as observed in all of the films would be impossible even if fire could bring down a steel frame building. All those imbalances and stresses inherent in the design would have twisted the building and toppled it to one side, quite the opposite of what we observe.
but also some serious problems, eg. UAF worked from the plans, and without the building debris you can’t prove that the building conformed to the plans; WTC7 might even have been missing some critical components.
UAF had access to the working drawings (those actually used during construction*) and I believe were able to consult with some of the actual team who built WTC7, ae9/11 truth and the report itself talk about these aspects. UAF had a far clearer understanding of the actual building than NIST, that much is clear. The same NIST who covered up and lied about any ad hoc demolition and indeed falsified some of their data as well as changing many material aspects of the building in order to bolster their case.
That said, as you probably know, all procedure and protocol for crime scenes, air crashes and terrorist attacks were scrupulously ignored after 9/11, and remember, this was all three. Evidence, including steel from all three buildings (the Pentagon too as far as I know) including the aircraft, were immediately removed from each scene and most of it destroyed before any investigation took place. Do you have a theory about why?
Further reading:
*And which contain more detail of additional fireproofing and beam stiffeners not present in the NIST report which I believe was only based on the plan drawings and not representative of the actual building. Puzzling that you should exactly reverse the order of evidence if you’ve actually read the report and had time to digest it.
J, good on you for reading the report, but I’m surprised you can look at the plans without going ‘urgh’. No, I’m not an architect, I’d be a repair and maintenance engineer under better economic circumstances; I have forty years experience with failures and bad design, and WTC7’s plans look pretty chaotic to me – why the wildly varying loads on vertical columns? Why is column 79 way out there on its own, and why place so much load on it compared with all the others? It’s nearly always best to distribute loads evenly.
I don’t remember accusing you of anti-Semitism, but you might have got caught in the crossfire with some other commenter. I joined the Labour Party specifically to support Jeremy Corbyn, my membership number is L1606883, and I regard the accusations against him of anti-Semitism as groundless propaganda.
I was appalled when I finally admitted to myself the anti-Semitism pervading the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. I got very angry when one Truther, a commenter at this site, jeopardised Craig’s defence against libel by turning up at the Royal Courts and, despite my desperate pleas, repeatedly tried to argue with me that 9/11 was an Israeli operation, right there in the corridor with the prosecution team within earshot. After the case, this commenter literally asked me if I was Jewish. I’m pretty sure that was the day I lost all patience with conspiracy theorists. Frequent outbursts against me haven’t helped either, such as that I “have blood on my hands” (over the Iraq war, apparently) or that I “should be taken out and shot” (for guestimating the natural collapse acceleration of the Twin Towers); some of these can be found on the 9/11 Post and the first UAF thread, though some were deleted by moderators under the “play the ball not the man” rule.
My evidence for demolition of WTC7 is the symmetry of its collapse, and FEMA’s report of inter-crystalline corrosion and partial evaporation of steel debris. My evidence for emergency demolition is mostly human rather than physical:
* Silverstein’s “pull it” interview,
* A news story of Silverstein desperately making ‘phone calls to arrange a demolition,
* Firefighters on video moving people away from WTC7 saying it’s about to “blow up”,
* Multiple firefighters saying that WTC7 would either fall down, or would be taken down,
* News crews and spectators seem to have been told to watch WTC7 because it would collapse,
* John Kerry said he thought so,One non-human point:
* The necessity of removing this unstable burning building to prevent proliferation of destruction and fire; WTC7 couldn’t be permitted to topple randomly because it had other tall buildings in all directions but south, which was a rescue and recovery zone.
My precedent for emergency demolition is military demolition, performed in hours, behind enemy lines. You won’t find any civilian ‘implosion’ of a building the size of WTC7, I think the record is about 30 storeys. Can it be done fast? Listen to Danny Jowenko (link), deceased Dutch demolition designer. He says that each demolition charge can be placed in minutes, and that the weeks or months of preparation are to strip the building of all hazardous materials including asbestos, arrange inspections so as to obtain a certificate, and then obtain a demolition license from the local authority.
I’d have thought New York would have been an ideal place to assemble a suitable demolition team; there’s a lot of crossover between demolition teams and military explosive handlers, and between firefighters and military lower ranks. There’s a huge naval base, and a massive population. There seem to be several demolition companies in New York.
I do have theories about Bobby McIlvaine and William Rodriguez, but can we stick to WTC7? Your own comment is over five feet long on my screen, and this reply is getting unwieldy.
A few points I missed – we should really keep this more focussed; make a list and then pick one point at a time…
I have considered demolition of WTC7 with explosives since I first saw video of its collapse.
I have considered the collapses of the Twin Towers; structural failure at the damaged zones initiating progressive collapse is by far the most reasonable explanation. Once the Twin Towers’ structure is understood, the collapse dynamics are exactly as one would expect – an avalanche of debris accelerated through the floor assemblies, effectively “unzipping” the perimeter, leaving the core remnants to fall last, as videoed.
I considered Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1”. I always had a strong feeling there was something wrong with it. Eventually I realised that if true, it rules out accelerating collapse of any structure that has successfully stood for a while, so reductio ad absurdum. The physics is correct (which is what was flummoxing me) but has only one spacial dimension, the vertical; in the real world, things can go past each other. That A&E9/11″Truth” still link to Chandler’s paper is a major mark against either their competence or their integrity.
– “…suggesting that many so called critics don’t actually seem to know what they’re arguing against.”
I agree with that, on both sides. The issue has become polarised, merely a fight in which nearly everyone has taken a side.
– “…could fairly be characterised as a flawless demolition..”
WTC7’s collapse hit two other buildings; the Fiterman Hall and the Verizon Building I think. One had to be demolished, and the other cost nearly a billion to repair.
– “…the lobby of WTC 7 filled with dead and dying according to witnesses..”
I am aware of only one such witness report; that of Barry Jennings, and he reported only a feeling he had after being told not to look down; he did not say he saw dead or dying. WTC7 had been evacuated before the collapse of WTC1 apart from Hess, Jennings and Bennette; Bennette, and WTC7’s evacuated ground floor and lobby are captured on Mark LaGanga’s incredible video “NIST FOIA Release 25 42A0120 G25D31 Video 1 WTC1 Collapse 10_28am”.
– “…even if fire could bring down a steel frame building”
Fire has brought down many steel structures; the Crystal Palace is probably the most famous. That’s why steel building frames are coated in fireproofing, or combined with concrete.
I don’t speculate about NIST’s motivations or their administrative decisions. They got some stuff right, a lot of stuff wrong. But Peter Ketcham was a software engineer for NIST; he’s not a whistleblower as he had no insider knowledge of the collapse investigations. He brings no new information and merely repeats memes found on A&E9/11truth’s site.
This is what the 9/11 truth movement is up against:
I came across an idiot on another forum linking to a BBC news article which makes the claim that “Mobile phone mast fires are being investigated amid conspiracy theories claiming a link between 5G and coronavirus.” A quick internet search for “fire 5G mast” with a custom date range excluding 2020 returns many cases of fire vandalism to 5G masts before coronavirus was ever heard of. However neither the BBC nor the idiot who gleefully linked the story thought to make this check in their rush to connect coronavirus scepticism and criminal conspiracy theory.
But then an even bigger idiot replied with “Great. So we can sit at home doing social distancing, but now without telephone and internet. Thank you David Chandler.”
WHAT?!! David Chandler is to blame for anything anyone claims is a conspiracy theory? By what tortuous unhinged chain of logic? I would love to hear the idiot who made that connection try to justify it.
[ Mod: You have little to gain by taunting an opponent (or at least someone you construe as an opponent); it only invites bickering.
In any case, Clark has been arguing for emergency demolition for years. Check his posts on the topic elsewhere in the discussion forum. ]
—Where does one begin with the mess Clark has served up for us?
The former Tinfoil Bonnet Finder General has finally come to acknowledge what must be acknowledged, WTC7 was demolished. It’s been scientifically proved and rather comprehensively so.
Now the argument must fall back to this: “Well of course those good murderers of the American state must be acting in good faith. Iraq? Chirac! It must have been rigged in super quick time, just a few hours. Super life saving job!”
Of course! How could Clark be wrong again?
The buildings must have been magically rigged for demolition in an hour or two. Look, see, one of the earliest demolition experts to be interviewed about the footage of WTC7 appears to have said so when he was first ambushed by the spectacle, especially if we squint at him sideways.
Poor Danny Jowenko. He who, once he realised the truth in those initial moments of shock, simply couldn’t accept it. Danny looked for the only explanation available to his world view at the time. The same explanation Clark has just recently found. Danny didn’t hold onto this next level of denial, he jettisoned it. As an expert he had to let it go.
Unfortunately, a few years later, poor Danny Jowenko ran his car into a tree on a straight road with few trees. Accident? Remorse? Murder? Best not listen to anything he said later on, lest we become confused.
Clark shows us his videos of the collapse. Look, look! It happened in a more leisurely fashion, this bit fell off first, the rest only appears to fall off at free fall.
So let us ask Clark to remark on a particular something in all of those videos he’s seen, something too small to see, and even when one sees it, one doesn’t know quite know what it portends. But let’s compare those videos with this clip, from time 00:48. It might dispel the fog:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1wixpa
After viewing, it will not be lost on Clark that all of the videos he’s seen until this one are sans audio, and in all of them without exception, until this clip, the flashes of demolition charges going off have been digitally edited out with little blobs of static the same tone as the building facade so we don’t notice anything missing.
Think about that. A successful concealment of the totally innocent fact of demolition across the worlds media. the demolition of a building nobody in officialdom has ever admited was demolished. A building that would never have collapsed on its own and like almost every other steel frame building that ever burned was perfectly capable of being repaired and returned to use. Yet for some reason it was demolished. And for some reason this life saving, unnecessary demolition has always been denied. And somehow this demolition was accomplished in a few hours. A demolition even NIST lied to conceal.
At some point one has to ask, if Clark’s Unicorn (emergency demolition) really does exist, then why did every media and medium that ever played these videos edit out both signatures of demolition visible in the original form of all these videos?
The sound of the charges and the flash as they go off has always removed by some pixel jockey in every video close enough to record it what actually happened. Why? Why this grand charade of officialdom to pretend demolition did not occur? Why did NIST falsify it’s own data to conceal demolition? Why did NIST pretend something impossible happened three times in one day?
Why Clark? Why? Until ‘yesterday’ Clark maintained there was no demolition (see the other threads) in contradiction to his response above. In the bowels of Christ Clark, take the next logical step.
J, you made only one point above that interests me:
– “Danny didn’t hold onto this next level of denial, he jettisoned it. As an expert he had to let it go.”
That’s new to me, so please supply some evidence, because I doubt its truthfulness.
More importantly, I notice that your latest comment is not addressed to me; it’s written as ridicule of me for some audience, real or imagined, who you assume already agree with you. These seem to be common patterns among Truthers; in-group conformity, ridicule of “outsiders”, and playing to the gallery. If you’d like me to continue communicating with you, please have the common decency to apologise, and henceforth treat me as your equal 🙂
Here’s the article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52164358
And here’s its evidence claim:
– “A video, allegedly of the blaze in Aigburth, was shared on YouTube and Facebook, claiming a link between the mobile technology and Covid-19.”
Yes, people were vandalising infrastructure before covid-19, but the article refers to three incidents; I expect that’s more than usual.
I believe that Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” is foundational to Twin Tower demolition theory, and that Twin Tower demolition theory is the Mother of all “science is just a conspiracy” theories. But these are just beliefs; they are not something I can prove or demonstrate.
But tell me Node and J; do you still accept Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration..”? Do you think that progressive collapse of the Twin Towers without explosives would have contradicted Newton’s laws?
J, I wrote a longer, more detailed reply to you last night, but there was something wrong with the forum making it impossible to post. I saved a copy so if you’d like to read it, apologise for your grandstanding and undertake to treat me as an equal, and I will post it. I refuse to accept or cooperate with the “Truthers versus sheeple and agents” paradigm because it’s a non-starter for anyone who thinks for themselves.
