- This topic has 424 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This employee at NIST for 14yrs is a lot smarter than Craig. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/category/10-stand-for-the-truth-a-government-researcher-speaks-out
Ketcham; I don’t even have to follow the link. By his own admission he’s just a software designer who got taken in by 9/11 Trutherism several years after the events. He has no experience in mechanical engineering, he never worked on the NCSTAR reports, never even worked in that department of NIST nor any related to it. He just repeats all the superficially-convincing-but-utterly-wrong stuff you’ll find at the A&E9/11″Truth” site; he doesn’t even add a single original idea.
The video’s worth watching though for the clips of the collapse of WTC1; it has the best clips of the core remnants I’ve found anywhere. Very ironic in that Ketcham keeps asking how the building could have fallen unless the core had been dynamited, yet you can see it still standing briefly after the internal collapse had smashed all the floor assemblies out and the perimeter had peeled outwards.
These people used their eyes and brains, and got it more right than anyone else:
Where is the additional tension force coming from with WTC7? In that video the chain is attached to the railing at the top which is why there is tension in the chain. If it wasn’t fixed at the top there would not be a tension force. He did another video: “How does a uniform cable beneath a helicopter hang?” where tension forces are also explored.
When we watch the ‘fall’ of WTC7, we’re really seeing the fall of the roof and outer perimeter walls, but we know that at least some of the internals collapsed shortly before because we see the penthouse fall in through the roof several seconds earlier, and from some angles we can briefly see daylight through the upper windows.
WTC7 was a “tube within a tube” design (as were the Twin Towers). The inner tube was the core, the outer tube was the perimeter walls. These were of course connected by the horizontal floor structures. So given that internals (the entire core I suspect) fell first, the horizontal connections would have been pulling down on the perimeter walls.
NIST published a fall rate well below g, the acceleration due to gravity, in their report. But David Chandler used video tracking software and produced a graph showing that the roof line fell at a rate approximating g. NIST were challenged and had to change their report.
Chandler claimed that the rate of fall was indistinguishable from g and argued that this proved controlled demolition, because the structure could have encountered no resistance on its way down. Sounds convincing, but nonsense; observation of known controlled demolitions shows that they accelerate at less than g, which makes sense when you remember all the internal destruction taking place in the process, the pulverisation evidenced by dust produced, and the big rumbling sound they make.
I’m inclined to take Chandler’s graph more seriously than he does himself. It shows the acceleration of the roof changing slightly, and briefly even exceeding g, twice if I remember rightly. Well, that makes sense if the falling internals started out pulling down via the horizontals on the perimeter (as they would), accelerating the perimeter until it exceeded g, at the same time impeding the fall of the core until the situation reversed such that the perimeter was pulling down on the core, etc., an oscillatory dynamic between perimeter and core.
The link to sharpprintinginc.com which I posted above, December 18, 2020 at 21:21, is now timing out without connecting. Luckily archive-org archived it:
We have plenty of videos of the collapse of WTC7. Chandler’s claim that acceleration at g proves controlled demolition implies things that we should have been able to see, but we do not. Chandler’s argument is that the structure must have provided zero resistance to collapse. Considering just the outer walls ie. the perimeter, I can think of two ways that that could have been the case:
- Explosive charges throughout the perimeter detonated simultaneously, dismembering it. But we don’t see them.
- But none of the videos show the lower levels of the building. I haven’t checked if enough of the lower levels were hidden from view in all videos for charges at these lower levels to produce the duration of acceleration at around g that the videos recorded, but from memory I think not.
I think Fairbanks and got it right; the building was deliberately brought down as symmetrically as could be achieved by destroying the base of the core, and then a few seconds later, the base of the perimeter. I should really examine their simulation to see if it is consistent with Chandler’s measurements, but my time is limited and there are far more pressing issues – WTC7’s fall killed or injured no one because it had been evacuated; it’s not really very important.
“WTC7’s fall killed or injured no one because it had been evacuated; it’s not really very important.”
If it were shown to have been a pre-prepared demolition it would undermine the whole 9/11 narrative and would thus be important in itself. However, I think there would be a lot of media chatter but no real change in people’s attitudes given the time that has passed. In the same vein, if papers came to light that proved that CIA operatives assassinated JFK nothing would really change in politics. Both events have already achieved any goals they were designed to achieve if indeed they were designed. The fact that no WMD were found in Iraq and the cynicism that followed didn’t make any difference to Iraq. Nor is it making any difference currently with the Ukraine narrative.
ET – “If it were shown to have been a pre-prepared demolition it would undermine the whole 9/11 narrative”
Indeed. But it couldn’t be shown to be that, because it wasn’t one. There is no such evidence to emerge.
The entire pre-prepared demolition narrative fails a simple critical thinking test: what if something had gone wrong with the attacks by aircraft? Either some buildings rigged for demolition would be left standing and teams would be needed to de-rig them, with some kind of cover story(?!) and very high potential of exposure of the de-rig team, or the demolition rigs would have to be triggered, to dispose of them, which would seem, er, a bit tricky to explain away. The potential for exposure is so ridiculously high that no one intelligent enough to plan it would have attempted it.
– “The fact that no WMD were found in Iraq and the cynicism that followed didn’t make any difference to Iraq.”
Indeed. But it did stop the Cameron government from bombing Syria; he lost that vote in the Commons amid remarks about the Dodgy Dossier and the Downing St Memo.
– “I think there would be a lot of media chatter but no real change in people’s attitudes…”
That’s a whole can of worms you’ve opened there and it will take me some time to compose a reply.
Can’t the Captcha have an “oh FFS” button? Four screens that time.
—
[ Mod: Sympathies. The mods have to endure the same merrygoround, and the underlying logic isn’t always clear. (I recently had 9 attempts before it gave in.)However, it would be risky to relax the security, as the volume of spam submissions (usually topics rather than replies) can be unmanageable. Occasionally a spam post gets through, and when that happens it tends to trigger a deluge of hundreds more entries within a few hours – most of which go to the spam folder, although usually 5 or 6 get published and have to be weeded out quickly. ]
** Mods ** – Sympathies in return. Yes, I’ve noticed that spam New Topics are very frequent. I was just venting my frustration really; more directed at Google than the site team. Thanks for all your work.
[ Mod note: This comment was posted via a VPN and could be from a previously banned commenter. ]
—
The peer reviewed forensic investigation into the collapse of WTC7 carried out by Prof Leo Hulsey (University of Fairbanks Alaska) has demonstrated that the NIST report into the collapse was flawed and has established that the building was not brought down by fires but by a single catastrophic failure. This is pretty conclusive, and does indeed open a large can of worms.
The highly detailed research carried out by Kees Van der Pjil on the occupation of the towers by Israeli ‘art students’ with palpable ties to Mossad, (showing pictures of boxes piled to the ceiling stamped with a Halliburton product code for detonators) is as close as you are going to get to evidence (admittedly circumstantial) of the rigging of explosives in the lift shafts of the twin towers.
Even so, looking for evidence of criminal conspiracies such as this, where the perpetrators will have been extremely very careful to have covered their tracks, and then relying upon the absence of such evidence to corroborate or support your argument that there was no conspiracy is at best very weak, and at worst dissembling.
“MickW”, Feb 21, 10:13:
– “established that the building was not brought down by fires but by a single catastrophic failure“
Try actually reading the report; it says two catastrophic failures – first the core, then the perimeter. That was the only simulation scenario that produced such a symmetrical collapse.
“The highly detailed research carried out by Kees Van der Pjil” must be balderdash, and either you or Pjil have even misquoted the original material. Here:
– “showing pictures of boxes piled to the ceiling stamped with a Halliburton product code for detonators.”
No, not “detonators”; fuses. And that’s exactly what they were boxes for; mains electrical fuse holders. The part numbers on the boxes match with the catalogue. And it wasn’t Halliburton; they were boxes for BB 18 circuit breaker holders made by Littelfuse. And the art group Gelatin were from Austria, not Israel. This has already been looked into in tedious detail:
September 26, 2016 at 02:03 on page 95 of the 9/11 Post. Link.
And demolishing the Twin Towers’ cores couldn’t have been the destruction mechanism because in both cases, the cores collapsed last, as recorded on multiple video clips; see my reply to Tony’s comment of December 14, 2020 at 07:13 above.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. How much wrongness can we cram into one comment? “Do your own research” indeed. But it shows, yet again, that Truthers have basically no interest in WTC7; they’re just using it as a stepping stone to the Twin Towers. And they absolutely don’t care how they distort facts so long as they end up pointing at Israel. Which is why people such as myself started suspecting anti-Semitism.
And no, you’re not Mick West; stop playing the fool 😀
“MickW” didn’t even spell Pijl correctly. I’d never heard of him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kees_van_der_Pijl&oldid=1072317947#Controversy
– Van der Pijl has claimed that Israelis brought down the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks ‘with help from Zionists in the US government’. The University of Sussex started a procedure to investigate accusations of antisemitism and demanded that Van der Pijl would make “a public apology on social media, acknowledging the hurt that your actions have caused and distancing yourself formally from anti-Semitism in any form.” and remove the tweet which started the row. Van der Pijl refused to do so and decided to resign from his emeritus status on 14 March 2019
Thank you for pointing out my typo
I must of course tender my sincere apologies to Prof Van der Pijl – I trust he will forgive me.
So you are quite correct in one regard. Having impugned the state of Israel the Professor was somewhat inevitably (but falsely) accused of anti-Semitism and subsequently fired from his position at Uni of Sussex after he refused to retract his allegations.
But I cannot see what point you are trying to make by sharing this Wikipedia link, as your response, such as it is, completely fails to address either of mine, i.e.
a). The existence of a peer reviewed forensic analysis of the collapse of WTC7 which establishes that this was not caused by fires, ergo, the NIST report which came to this conclusion was deeply flawed, and
b). The research of Prof Van der Pijl which sets out the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, of Mossad involvement in the attacks on the twin towers.
This does tend to indicate that the official explanations are not viable, and therefore it is highly likely that there was a criminal conspiracy to carry out a false flag attack on the USA, the motivations for which have since become blindingly obvious.
“MickW” regarding your point a), maybe you should read some of my comments before assuming you need to argue with me? For instance, just ten comments up this page I wrote:
– “I think Fairbanks and got it right; the building [WTC7] was deliberately brought down as symmetrically as could be achieved by destroying the base of the core, and then a few seconds later, the base of the perimeter.”
As for b), I see nothing meticulous, nor even original, in Pijl’s resignation statement. You didn’t link to it but it can be found here. He merely rehashes from the usual handful of Truther sources, unquestioningly accepting all their atrocious “research”, even Rebekah Roth’s, er, bizarre fantasy. This does not bode well for his academic rigour. Maybe by the age of 72 he wasn’t as sharp as he once was?
You wrote:
– “This does tend to indicate that the official explanations are not viable, and therefore it is highly likely that there was a criminal conspiracy to carry out a false flag attack on the USA.”
Good thinking, Batman. Here’s an equivalent piece of “logic”:
– “You got almost everything wrong in your previous comment, and therefore it is highly likely that you’re a Martian trying to take over the French government.”
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and there is indeed evidence of Israeli foreknowledge. But promoting something you read just because some obscure professor wrote it is the epitome of argument from authority rather than evidence.
9/11 general knowledge quiz – How was the majority of the “evidence” submitted to the 9/11 Commission obtained?
Possibly I should be less harsh on Professor Pijl. Despite his complete lack of critical thinking about any of the claims he rehashes and his utter lack of scepticism about his sources, his resignation statement may serve as a sort of fairly concise index of who made which claims. He does at least cite his sources, quite comprehensively actually, so his statement is far from useless.
“Even so, looking for evidence of criminal conspiracies such as this, where the perpetrators will have been extremely very careful to have covered their tracks, and then relying upon the absence of such evidence to corroborate or support your argument that there was no conspiracy is at best very weak, and at worst dissembling.”
So the absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy? Medieval trial? Drown and you were telling the truth, float and you are a witch. Absence of evidence is just that, ABSENCE of evidence.
I’ve no idea what absence of evidence I’m supposed to have relied upon anyway.
But yes, Truther “logic” is much like witch trials; it’s an aspect of the mode of thought called conspiracy theory. Any claim can be made, and if there’s no evidence for it, well, that just proves how powerful the conspiracy is, doesn’t it? Anyone challenging the claim will be derided as either covering up on behalf of the conspiracy ie. evil, or too trusting of the authorities to ever question them ie. stupid. “MickW” accused me of dissembling in their very first comment. So if you want to avoid being smeared, you’d best believe what they tell you to believe. OK?
Is he a blue Pijl or a red Pijl?
9/11 101 Q2. Name one genuine 9/11 whistleblower. You know; someone who actually held some insider position, and spoke out about something we wouldn’t have known otherwise.
9/11 101 Q3 (spoiler alert – don’t use this question as your answer to Q2). What was Michael Springmann’s post and what did he reveal?
OK so over four days have passed since “MickW” posted. Yet again, unless we all bleat from the “pre-rigged explosive demolition of the Twin Towers by Israel” hymn-book, conspiracy theorists aren’t interested.
I have looked and looked and looked for any evidence of explosive demolition of the Twin Towers, followed every lead and claim that Twin Tower demolition advocates have posted, and found essentially nothing. Quite a bit that the New York Fire Department hurriedly brought down WTC7, presumably as a fire break, but all the evidence for the Twin Towers points to structural failure initiating progressive collapse, just as the mainstream engineering community maintains. I found unorthodox and very lightweight design and construction that would not have been approved anywhere outside of the Port of New York Authority, inadequate fireproofing of critical structural components, inadequate emergency escape facilities and minimal sprinkler systems, and potential overloading of the structures, but none of the pre-rigged demolition advocates are interested in any of that.
They’re not interested in the US torture policy or who authorised it, the Quincy Agreement, Saudi jihadis training at military facilities in the US, Sibel Edmonds or Gladio B.
Do they just want simple sound-bites or are they shills for the torturers, jihadis and warmongers? Since they consistently clear off when their demolition “evidence” is challenged and never engage about anything else, there seems to be no way to find out.
And they behave like spooks! With their pseudonyms, multiple identities, hidden IP addresses and wink-wink nudge-nudge say-no-more innuendos; they seem terribly cloak-and-dagger.
Very simple reason to disbelieve this
Why bother? If you’ve taken out the twin towers with aeroplanes what extra effect do you get from demolishing a nearby less imposing building?
SteveH, part of the cover-up, the Truthers unanimously tell us, and list all the spooky organisations who had offices there. Destruction of evidence, they say; “it’s where the never-seen-before computer sequenced detonation of the Twin Towers was controlled from, and its demolition destroyed a lot of documents and records”.
But it looked so much like a controlled explosive demolition, and so many involved people said things consistent with it being a demolition, and no other collapse scenario can explain the neat, symmetrical fall. But I certainly can’t see how pre-rigging the demolition of some obscure adjacent building could possibly be consistent with MickW’s February 21, 10:13 remark:
– “…the perpetrators will have been extremely very careful to have covered their tracks”.
