The 9/11 Post 11807


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).


11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 99 100 101 102 103 134
  • Clark

    It’s obvious why the Twin Towers collapsed straight down without tipping over. In both cases, the cores were seen to remain standing after the main collapse was complete. If the perimeters of the top sections retained any continuity, that’s exactly what we should expect. The top sections fell like a US doughnut sliding down a vertical pole through its central hole.

    I realised this yesterday morning. That’s what happens when you think about the dynamics for yourself instead of watching pre-digested YouTube vids. I can’t be the first to think of it, but I can’t remember reading it anywhere either.

    • Node

      In both cases, the cores were seen to remain standing after the main collapse was complete.

      Would you show me some photos of that, please.

        • Node

          “In both cases, the cores were seen to remain standing after the main collapse was complete.”
          …. then ….
          “WTC2 was more shrouded in dust”

          So neither you nor anybody else saw the core of WTC2 remain standing after the main collapse was complete.

          So let’s look at WTC1.

          There is no sign of the central core protruding above roof level for most of the collapse. How do you explain this? Do you think the core was strong enough to prevent millions of tons of rubble deviating sideways, but failed, worn away by friction, just as the roof level reached it? It wasn’t visible even at the beginning of the collapse, when the forces were most asymmetric and it’s vertical guidance most needed.

          Then towards the end of the collapse, we get a brief glimpse of, not the core structure but one vertical support, which almost immediately disappears. What happened here? If your scenario is correct, as the collapse neared ground level the central core should have been surrounded by an ever-compacting mass of rubble which would act as a support, propping the remaining core in a vertical position. Pictures the next day should have revealed ‘a vertical pole’ surrounded by ‘doughnuts’ – at the very least a pronounced pyramid of rubble at the centre of each footprint. Can you show me photographic evidence of this for either tower?

          So rather than “In both cases, the cores were seen to remain standing after the main collapse was complete,” what you should have said was “In one case, a small part of the core was briefly glimpsed.”

          • Node

            Ba’al,

            I was just about to go out for the rest day when I saw your post. I can see the document is too big to read now so I’ll come back on it tomorrow, I have to say that the 2nd paragraph of the introduction doesn’t bode well. Extract :

            “To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001) (Bažant 2001; Bažant and Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then showed that the kinetic energy of the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower part by an order of magnitude. A meticulous investigation of un-precedented scope and detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2005), supports this explanation.”

            If the explanation rest on the premise that NIST’s examination was meticulous, then it’s not going to go unchallenged. And as for Bazant and Zhou ……

          • John Goss

            I took a look at Ba’al’s link. This crush down crush up theory (because that’s what it is) takes over from NIST’s original findings (which were erroneous) and makes the same mistakes. As with NIST it fails to mention Newtonian physics. There is no resistance from below in these calculations, everything falls down and in like a house of cards. Unfortunately for these ‘crank’ scientists the twin towers were structurally sound and not a house of cards.

            The other main failure is the lack of acknowledgement of heat necessary to bend the girders (800 degrees?). Its conclusions as well as ignoring Newton’s third law ignores how much heat would be necessary to keep a furnace burning in the towers footprint for three months after the towers fell. You can try to bamboozle as much as you like with complex formulae. What you can’t do is ignore basic physics.

            Nice try Ba’al.

          • John Goss

            Thankfully there has been scientific dismantling of the Bazant (et al) paper which address the almost freefall destruction of one of the towers, which even a child knows cannot happen. This sentence is important because it adds structural resistance as well as the basic reaction against the action which would slow down any fall.

            “When interactions between the walls of a column develop, secondary resistance arises.”

            http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

            There are other papers too which conclude that the reason for the fall of either of the twin towers is not known.

          • John Goss

            I have reassessed my opinion on this. Clark is right. It is the core. The video he linked to was of poor quality and no doubt posted as entrapment. Here is a better frame by frame video showing the collapse of this core structure. As the text accompanying hints it must have been brought in on itself by explosives.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZDQ3hiiTbY

          • John Goss

            I have put some comments and videos which show the section standing but these comments appear above on the thread. The are in my opinion conclusive proof that explosives were used especially when the commentators talk of a ‘secondary explosion’. All very revealing.

        • Node

          ….. and actually, the column in your first video link looks to me like it is from the perimeter rather than the core.

          • Clark

            Wrong. Take the other buildings as guidelines and you’ll see that the structure that briefly stood was from the interior, not near a face or a corner of the perimeter.

          • Clark

            …and within the perimeter there was no vertical structure apart from core structure, so it has to be core structure.

            It does get described as perimeter structure on a news programme, but that newsreader is wrong, too. There’s no sign of it turning to dust or being vaporised, either, as the video I linked makes out. I sometimes wonder if anyone can get anything right.

          • John Goss

            That’s right Node. My analysis too. It’s part of the exoskeleton which did not fall in until the next lot of explosives were triggered. No way is it part of the endoskeleton. Of course you, I and some newsreader must all be wrong when the guardian angel of the thread pontificates.

          • John Goss

            I have put some comments and videos which show the section standing but these comments appear above on the thread. They are in my opinion conclusive proof that explosives were used especially when the commentators talk of a ‘secondary explosion’. All very revealing.

          • John Goss

            Although Clark is right that it is the inner core of WTC1 watch carefully the structural steel uprights. The are so strong. They sway as though being blown in the wind yet remain intact until brought down by secondary explosions. They do not topple. They are brought in on themselves. So Clark by posting a grainy version of this has virtually proved the case he does not support of explosives being used to bring down the towers. No wonder he did not post the better quality links.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI

          • John Goss

            Fair comment Clark. I accept that I was probably pushing your motives unjustly and apologise for that. And it was your comment about there being many photographs and videos of this (though it was new to me) that encouraged me to search. I believe you are honest and even though I disagree with your ideas about how the twin towers fell, and even think them ‘garage science’ I also believe that you honestly hold them.

  • Paul Barbara

    So Dr. Leroy Hulsey, the engineering professor is approaching the completion of his WTC 7 computer modeling study. That should be tres interesante! But ffffffin the interim, for our American friends, there’s an event in Boston:
    ‘Boston Tea Party Anniversary: Back-to-Back Days of Inspiring Events’:
    ‘http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=02db0a9b88&e=[UNIQID]

      • Node

        Hey John, O/T but interesting.

        I created a facebook account about 3 years ago – against my better judgment but I realised that it was a sure-fire way to see plenty of photos of my granddaughter. I have set the ‘privacy’ as high as possible, provided no personal information, and the only post I have ever made was a friend request to my daughter-in-law so that I could ‘look over her shoulder’ at her family posts.

        Facebook constantly tries to get me more involved but I ignore everything, especially the unnervingly accurate suggestions they make about other facebookers “you may know.” I’ve often thought there is no legal way they ought to be able to make the connection between me and those people.

        But now they have revealed their hand. Last week they suggested I might know you! The only feasible way they can connect us is through a donation I made to your charity page, which I guess means they are using the cookies on millions of pages with facebook-share links to track my movements.

        No doubt somewhere or other I have ‘agreed’ to allow Facebook to do this (and also have sacrificial rights to my firstborn should they choose), but for fuck’s sake, if they can do this to me with the absolute minimum of information, what the fuck can they do to those who log their every life detail in their personal CIA files Facebook page.

        What am I going to do about it? Nothing. Am I even surprised? No.

        • John Goss

          No you should not be surprised.

          Those who post to Facebook and I do regularly should not be surprised either if they can see comments and others cannot. Facebook groups are also censored “automatically reported by Facebook” and these are generally the more accurate articles. I have had experience of this.

          Fortunately, as things stand, social networking sites are still the channels of true news. Here is a good article that proves it. You cannot expect this from the BBC.

          http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/christian-christmas-damascus-thanks-santa-assad/ri18027

          And just in case the trolls try to belittle Russia Insider here is Eva Bartlett’s take last year.

          http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/12/christmas-magic-in-terror-ravaged-syria/

          Apols for going off topic.

        • Clark

          “Pages that contain Facebook “like” buttons enable Facebook to track visitors to those pages. Facebook tracks Internet users that see “like” buttons, even users who never visited facebook.com and never click on those buttons”

          “Jim Wright forcefully condemned the pressure put on Americans to endorse all the bellicose or dangerous “responses” to the September 11 attacks. Facebook censored it, apparently for political reasons”

          And much more:

          https://stallman.org/facebook.html

          • John Goss

            Thanks for the Stallman link Clark.

            It’s too late for me. They archive everything. But then I don’t care for myself, just for others. I have even put a message on Facebook that some people use this site for social networking. I am not one of those. 🙂

  • Tony Thomas

    High school physics is sufficient to show that the official story of 9/11 is absurd. Unfortunately even this level of education is lacking in otherwise knowledgable and intelligent people. The consquence is that you can fool most of the people most of the time because they are too lazy to do even minimal research.

    • John Goss

      Could not agree more Tony. And there are plenty on this thread who have high-school physics. So there should be no conjecture and everybody should be calling for a proper inquiry even at this late stage. I am sure there is evidence still buried underground.

      • Paul Barbara

        There is, at the ‘Fresh Kills’ Landfill dump; but I believe it is ‘Protected’ as a ‘War Grave’; anyhow, family members who wanted to get the WTC debris (including any victims’ body parts) were refused:
        ‘Fresh Kills Landfill becomes New York Park’:
        http://www.iconeye.com/component/k2/item/9649-fresh-kills-landfill-becomes-new-york-park

        ‘……However, the day after 9/11, Fresh Kills opened again, when trucks and barges brought over the wreckage of the World Trade Centre. Construction workers nicknamed Ground Zero “The Pit”, and Fresh Kills’ West Mound, where 1.4 million tonnes of bent I-beams, crushed cars and other debris were deposited, was renamed “The Hill”. FBI agents in white protective suits and masks sifted the remnants, looking for evidence and proof of identity (the debris was sifted down to a quarter of an inch). More than 4,200 human remains were found and they managed to identify 300 victims. On 31 July 2002, Fresh Kills closed for good.
        “There are families who did not recover any body part of a family member and they believe that their blood, their DNA, their bones are here,” Corner says. “To them it’s an atrocity that these should be mingled in with a trash mound. So, politically, it’s a very charged landscape.” Eleven such families took their battle to have the World Trade Centre debris moved from the landfill to a cemetery all the way to the Supreme Court, where their appeal was turned down. They were not appeased by the suggestion that a park, containing a monument to the recovery effort, would rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes….’

        I hadn’t realised that so much steel from the WTC was there; it’s a ticking time-bomb, if ever a decent President gets elected, but I think chances for that are zero. So, yep, the evidence IS there, but the PTB won’t let anyone get it to test it.

      • John Goss

        Clark, several times I have opened this Killick diagram, and every time I have scratched my head pondering what the hell it is about. There is no explanation with it of either what it represents or the science and calculations behind the sketches.

        Perhaps somebody else can explain if they can grasp the meaning. It obviously means a lot to you Clark because you keep posting it. Can I ask if your theory fits in with the way these girders remain in position until clearly brought down from below?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI

        • John Goss

          This Russian man Dimitri Khalezov shows several diagrams and footage of the collapse of the WTC to support his hypothesis. He explains the nature of the diagrams and what significance they have to his ideas about what happened.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw5P7Hl0TRc

          His explanation raises a question to me. What caused the towers to shake (tremble) 4 seconds before they started to collapse? His conclusion is it was an underground nuclear explosion. Perhaps you could make a video to explain what you mean. 🙂

          • Clark

            John, you asked:

            “What caused the towers to shake (tremble) 4 seconds before they started to collapse?”

            The effect is shown at about 5:22 into the Dimitri Khalezov interview video which you posted:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw5P7Hl0TRc

            The original is the “WTC1 Sauret” video.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjHIGe7XtSM

            Look at the bottom-left corner and you’ll see a wire or something in the foreground. Note that it appears to shake exactly as the building does. Therefore the trembling is not the building shaking, but the camera. The wire is definitely independent from the building because it remains after the building has fallen.

          • John Goss

            Clark, if there was an underground nuclear explosion the ground would shake for miles around and yes other buildings would shake too. But all the videos of the event cannot be false. If you watch this through, yes it includes the quake at the same time, you will see also the core structure that remained standing before being brought down from below (the only part behaving anything like Newton’s Third Law). Notice how still the camera is until 20 seconds into the video. If that does not convince you I have little idea what might budge your obstinacy.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJmcokFLh8I

            Please explain how the core structure, seconds before so strong, suddenly falls before atomising.

          • Clark

            That, again, is camera shake, because the whole frame moves – watch the other buildings. Just as on the previous video, “WTC1 Sauret”, where there’s no way the foreground wire would move in perfect synchronisation with the background building – the wire would develop its own oscillations.

            Here are some buildings swaying due to earthquake. They do not all move together:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0cz-oDfUg0

          • Clark

            John, it’s not that I’m (unduly) obstinate. If I’m shown sound, verifiable evidence I change my outlook accordingly. I just seem obstinate because there are so many wrong assertions and false “evidence” flooding the Truther scene. This is not my fault; it’s the inevitable result of the major problem within the Truth movement, which is that Truthers hardly ever challenge anything so long as it contradicts “the official story”.

            Node has been good enough to challenge two matters; the supposedly missing trillions in the Pentagon budget, and that aluminium can never break through steel. But it’s just not enough. Really, everyone should be helping to refine everyone else’s facts. Instead, anyone who challenges gets accused of being some kind of agent. If they know the challenger is not an agent they start criticising the tone or frequency of the challenger’s comments, like Glenn_UK and Vronsky have done to me. It’s a form of intellectual bullying to enforce conformity, and its result is the proliferation of bullshit. No wonder the public ignore the whole movement. We need to clean up our act.

          • Clark

            Myself, December 12 at 19:18:

            “Here are some buildings swaying due to earthquake. They do not all move together”

            They move, each according to its own resonant frequencies, as any engineer would understand.

        • John Goss

          Can I ask for anyone questioning the science of Khalezov to stick strictly to the science and not use ad hominems in accodeance with the guidelines of the blog. Thank you.

          • Clark

            John, it’s just a quick sketch to illustrate the overriding importance of geometry to the structural integrity of a building. The left diagram is Chandler’s Fig 3 from his paper “Downward Acceleration of WTC 1”, which I claim is too simplistic because it ignores the structure of the building. My two diagrams with red arrows illustrate why.

            They are not proper stress diagrams, but they illustrate that geometry is vital. In the centre diagram, the large, upward arrows represent the supporting forces that the uprights can supply. These are larger than the medium-sized downward arrows, which represent the gravity load. The available support is greater than the load, so the load is supported, with considerable redundancy.

            The thin horizontal lines represent the floor structures. In typical high-rise buildings, horizontal floor structures are designed to support their own weight, the static and dynamic loads they may reasonably be expected to encounter, plus a margin for redundancy. They are +not+ designed to carry the entire weight of all structure above, because such unnecessary strength would make them too heavy, which would limit the overall height of the building. The function of supporting the structure above is performed by the vertical columns, not by the horizontal floor structures. Therefore I have drawn smaller upward arrows to represent the support capacity of the floor structures.

            The relative size of the arrows on my sketch illustrate that the downward load in the vertical columns could not be supported by the floor structures. The structural integrity depends upon the vertical columns remaining in line, such that the loading force is always transmitted straight downward through the columns. If that geometry were disrupted (as in my “collapse initiation” doodle), the downward force would instead be applied to the horizontal floor assemblies, but they would be incapable of supplying sufficient upward force. A net downward force would remain, so downward acceleration would be inevitable in accordance with F=ma.

            “Lose the geometry, lose the building”.

          • Clark

            There are so many rational objections to Dimitri Khalezov’s “underground nukes” assertion. It would have blown the buildings up instead of causing them to collapse. The detonations would have shown up in the seismic data. They would have been detected seismically and hydro-acoustically by the international nuclear monitoring programmes. They would have been detected from orbit and on the surface by particle and electromagnetic emissions. People trapped and later rescued from the stairwells couldn’t have survived the radiation pulse. Fallout would have been detected later, at the site and wherever the wind took it, hundreds of miles away.

            There are so many objections that Dimitri Khalezov can’t possibly believe it himself. He can’t claim ignorance of the effects and detection procedures regarding nukes:

            [Khalezov] is a former commissioned officer of the so-called “military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for the detection of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR and was responsible for controlling observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions

            https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dimitri_Khalezov

            While trying not to ad hominen too much, he seems to be hoping that some of his audience will take his word without thinking, which would also fit with him passing off camera shake as the vibrations of a nuclear detonation.

          • John Goss

            They were detected seismically from a station 34 kilometres away. There were none in the near vicinity.

            This is Dr Andre Rousseau’s explanation. If you look at the seismic graphs 2 minutes 20 into the video you can see massive activity at the time of the collapses. Dr Rousseau explains why these are underground explosions and the difference between those and the explosions at the time the alleged aircraft crashed into the towers.

          • Clark

            John, you may find it interesting to explore from the following page regarding the seismic records, particularly as concerns the difference between p-waves and s-waves:

            http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

            That page was recommended by David Chandler (some of his papers are hosted by A&E for 9/11 truth), who is at his best when making measurements. I found the page reference in the following video, which you may also find interesting:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw

          • John Goss

            Well there would be no fallout with an underground nuclear explosion because that was the purpose of them to prevent fallout in the atmosphere. Do you know nothing?

            And please don’t question my intelligence by bringing a twopenny blogger to your assistance.

          • Clark

            The WTC site was cleared out down to the bedrock; John, you yourself have posted photographs of this. Any iodine 131 would have decayed to very low levels after just three months, but strontium and caesium activity would take about thirty years to fall by half.

          • John Goss

            As NIST never checked for explosives personnel in the know were unlikely to take geiger counters down there. Or if they did and there was evidence they would be unlikely to release it. NIST are still allegedly holding on to evidence which you Clark think would support your impossible theory.

          • Clark

            Strontium contamination would produce bone cancers, I think, but I don’t know how long before they’d show up. I can’t remember what caesium does but I’m pretty sure it’s an x-ray source because it’s used as that in x-ray machines. X-rays would fog photographic film. There must be a host of other effects too.

            Really, nuclear explosions are among the most difficult of events to cover up.

          • Kempe

            Underground nuclear tests are usually conducted at great depths and not only do release some radiation into the atmosphere, as well as contaminated soil but leave large craters on the surface. The 104kt Sedan test of 1962 for example was detonated 194 metres below the surface and left a crater 100 metres deep and 390 metres in diameter. Two plumes of fallout rose 10,000 an 16,000 feet into the air and released 880,000 Curies of Iodine 131. Modern unclear weapons might be much “cleaner” but 1 Curie is still enough to kill someone so if nuclear weapons were used on 9/11 where is the epidemic of thyroid and other cancers that would inevitably result not to mention the huge craters and the fallout?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)

            You don’t have to rely on NIST to check for radioactivity, Geiger counters can be bought for a reasonable price or even hired so any Truther in search of hard evidence could check for themselves.

          • Kempe

            ” please don’t question my intelligence by bringing a twopenny blogger to your assistance. ”

            Errm:-

            ” Can I ask for anyone questioning the science of Khalezov to stick strictly to the science and not use ad hominems in accodeance (sic) with the guidelines of the blog. “

          • John Goss

            Kempe, my last comment was in answer to Clark.

            As to cancers it is difficult one way or another to relate this to any specific cause: dust, chemicals, toxins or other carcinogenics. Nuclear-related cancers are just as difficult to ascribe to an event. But there have been plenty of cancers which people believe were caused by 9/11.

            http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/09/14-years-later-heres-what-we-know-about-911-and-cancer/403888/

            After Hiroshima many people eventually succumbed to cancer. As they did with Chernobyl. Some have survived these events. Unless you can definitively show me that a cancer related to 9/11 was caused by something else, it could just as easily have been caused by nuclear fallout. Stalemate on this at the moment.

            Not the quakes and atomisation though. What can’t speak can’t lie.

          • John Goss

            ” please don’t question my intelligence by bringing a twopenny blogger to your assistance. ”

            Fair comment it must have seemed like a baseless ad hominem. However I had looked at his blog, water cutting metal and all that. Yes water can cut metal up to 4 inches thick within a very confined space. What happens to a fighter jet when it hits a reinforced concrete wall. What you would expect.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

          • Clark

            “Yes water can cut metal up to 4 inches thick within a very confined space”

            Oh I’d wondered about that. I posted a link to high-pressure cutting, but then posted a correction as the water carried abrasive. Four inches, eh? The plates the box-columns were made of were only 1/4 inch thick near the tops of the buildings.

          • Kempe

            ” As to cancers it is difficult one way or another to relate this to any specific cause ”

            Well no it isn’t. There are hundreds of different types of cancers and the causes can be determined by pathology. A friend of mine died last month (one reason I’ve nor been around much) and they were able to determine that his lung cancer was of a type caused by exposure to asbestos and not smoking or any other cause. Iodine collects in the thyroid gland so radioactive iodine will cause cancer there. I’ve not heard of any thyroid cancer deaths post 9/11 just those caused by the inhalation of toxic dust.

          • Clark

            Kempe, I’m sorry about your friend.

            I’m also sorry about Craig’s dismissal of your comment on the “Facebook Suppresses Truth” thread. “Ghost banning” is indeed an automatic measure against spammers; the real question is why Twitter has been so slow to deactivate it.

          • Clark

            Kempe, December 13, 10:52:

            “I’ve not heard of any thyroid cancer deaths post 9/11”

            According to papers linked from the article John Goss linked to, there has been a statistically significant increase of thyroid cancers;

            “Most recently, the NYC DOHMH investigated cancer incidence during 2003–2008 in a cohort of approximately 56,000 individuals registered with the WTC Health Registry and reported statistically significant increases in thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma among rescue and recovery workers in 2007–2008 (Li et al. 2012)”

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672914/

            39 cases where 16.3 would be expected among a sample of 20,984, if I’m reading “table 2” correctly:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672914/table/t2/

  • John Goss

    “A net downward force would remain, so downward acceleration would be inevitable in accordance with F=ma.”

    This is a nonsense interpretation of physics and Newton’s Second Law. Where is all this force (F)? You have forgotten about the Third Law of the conservation of momentum of equal and opposite forces. As far as you’re concerned there are no floors below. Or they are so weak they just collapse at almost freefall. This is nonsense. There was no damage to the floors below. Your theory is beyond belief, beyond physics, beyond reality. Go back and look at the girders you call spires, the ones that did not fall with the rest. They are the only visible parts of WTC1 that behaved anything like normally. Then they come down, are brought down from below (and you cannot argue against that), before disintegrating into powder before our very eyes.

    I have said many times I do not know what caused the collapse of the WTCs but the NIST version is nonsense.

    • Clark

      The force comes from gravity. Momentum is indeed conserved, but considering the more optimistic case of WTC1, with ten or more floors-worth of material falling upon just one floor structure, speed of collapse would be decreased by less than one tenth. Then the material has over 3.5 metre in which to accelerate under gravity before the next floor is encountered, where less than one eleventh of speed would be lost, then less than a twelfth at the next and so on.

      Speed will also be lost in breaking either the floor assemblies or their connections to the uprights, but this is more difficult to estimate than the loss due to sharing of momentum; it requires knowledge of the specific construction of the buildings*.

      This is sufficient to refute Chandler’s claim that his simple action-reaction argument rules out gravitational acceleration of the collapses.

      * The blueprints say what the buildings were meant to be like, but the evidence of whether they were actually constructed to that standard is what was whisked away, melted down and buried by the Port Authority – which could ignore state-wide building codes, and also attempted to withhold documents from the FEMA and NIST investigations, eventually releasing them only under non-disclosure agreements.

      The vertical fall of the “spire” is another matter, but it does appear to have fallen vertically rather than “disintegrating into powder”. We cannot see what happened, but no sound of explosion was recorded at that moment. Tens of thousands of tonnes of falling debris impacted around the base of the “spire”; presumably some of that knocked the bottom out causing the rest to fall vertically. I can’t see much point in saving a few explosive charges until after the main collapse just to take down the “spire”; what if the charges’ radio detonators (or whatever) had been damaged and live explosives had been found by one of the rescue crews, or worse still detonated and killed some of them? A give-away like that would have jeopardised the attack on Afghanistan.

      • John Goss

        “The force comes from gravity. Momentum is indeed conserved, but considering the more optimistic case of WTC1, with ten or more floors-worth of material falling upon just one floor structure, speed of collapse would be decreased by less than one tenth. Then the material has over 3.5 metre in which to accelerate under gravity before the next floor is encountered, where less than one eleventh of speed would be lost, then less than a twelfth at the next and so on.”

        You’ve not thought this through Clark. As I’ve tried to explain on several occasions the undamaged floors had supported what was above them for 35 years and even withstood a bomb at the base. Your figures about a tenth, then an eleventh, and so on, are utter nonsense. Quite the reverse would have happened. The above structure would have arrested, then if they reached the next floor have arrested even more. It’s Newton’s Third Law which you say you understand.

        I’ve absolutely no idea where you got these figures. When you have a solid structure below which is dense and vertically structurally strong as the twin towers were it would be more like a car hitting a forest of trees at ten miles an hour. Every tree, one I suspect would be enough, would slow the car down more until it stopped. Again you seem to be thinking there were no girders, riveted and welded together. Or that the twin towers had no base! There is believe me, and I say this to try and help you out of the miasma, you have fallen into, please try to think this through logically using physics. Every one who has has come to the same conclusion.

        • Clark

          “…the undamaged floors had supported what was above them for 35 years”

          No, the undamaged perimeter and core, ie. the upright columns, had supported the structure above them for 35 years. Each floor assembly only supported its own weight and the office contents upon it. The floor assemblies supplied only horizontal bracing to the uprights. This enabled lightweight floor assemblies to be used, reducing the overall weight enabling the buildings to be so high. The floor assemblies were vertically supported by the upright columns, not vice-versa.

          The figures of a tenth, then an eleventh, then a twelfth etc. reflect the accumulating mass as the collapse entrained additional floor structures. Each successive floor down shared its (zero) momentum with a greater impacting mass, so the falling mass lost less velocity at each successive floor.

          • Clark

            Here’s where I got the figures. All the floor assemblies had the same mass. Let that mass be m

            In WTC1, the top section which began to fall was about eleven storeys high. Neglecting one floor assembly in case it was damaged, and for simplicity neglecting the upright columns, the hat truss and all ancillary equipment, the mass of its floor assemblies would be about (10 times m)

            So a mass of 10m falls through at least one storey and impacts upon a stationary mass of m

            Considering conservation of momentum in an inelastic collision:

            m(1) times v(1) plus m(2) times v(2) = m(total) times v(subsequent)

            Let m(1) be mass of falling material = 10m
            Let v(1) be velocity of falling material = v
            Let m(2) be mass of topmost stationary floor assembly = m
            Let v(2) be velocity of topmost stationary floor assembly = zero

            Substituting in:

            (10m times v) + (m times zero) = (10m + m) times v(subsequent)

            But (m times zero) = zero, and (10m +m) = 11m, so:

            10m times v = (11m) times v(subsequent)

            Dividing throughout by 11m:

            (10m times v) / 11m = v(subsequent)

            Reversing left and right sides for convenience:

            v(subsequent) = (10m times v) / 11m

            On the right side m cancels:

            v(subsequent) = (10/11) times v

            So the velocity after impact is about 10/11 of the velocity before impact; in other words about one eleventh less; I’d slightly overestimated the loss!

          • John Goss

            You start with a false premise.

            “So a mass of 10m falls through at least one storey and impacts upon a stationary mass of m”

            If you want the mass of 10m in the action it meets with 110m below, plus all the concrete and even stronger foundations (the reaction) you can’t just have one floor. With the Law of Inertia (Newton’s First Law) a body will only keep moving in a straight line until it is pushed to change speed and direction. The solid undamaged structure below pushes up against it slowing it down or stopping it.

            Take your figures to any maths teacher and I am sure he or she can explain it, because I’ve tried, and it is impossible.

          • John Goss

            “The solid undamaged structure below pushes up against it slowing it down or stopping it.”

            The other thing that could have happened would have been a change in direction but I left that out because we know that did not happen.

          • Clark

            “If you want the mass of 10m in the action it meets with 110m below, plus all the concrete and even stronger foundations (the reaction) you can’t just have one floor”

            The falling section doesn’t impact the entire structure at once; that’s why it’s called “progressive collapse”. You seem to be assuming that every component of the buildings was infinitely strong! You may as well give up; there is no explosive powerful enough to even dent such buildings, so they must still be there!

            John, each floor assembly did not support the entire structure above it. The core and perimeter frames supported the floor assemblies. And you tell me I need to learn the basics! I’d suggest you contact A&E 9/11 Truth but I know you don’t even trust them because they accept that the aircraft breached the perimeters. You’re way out on a limb, claiming that everyone is out of step but you! Time to reassess, perhaps?

          • John Goss

            “The core and perimeter frames supported the floor assemblies.”

            Yes. And they were supported by cross girders too. Every single floor. Therefore the floor above was supported by the floor below right up to the top.

            You ignore any real science in exchange for this gobbledygook. I’m out.

          • Clark

            Me: – “The core and perimeter frames supported the floor assemblies.”

            John: – “Yes. And they were supported by cross girders too. Every single floor”

            Untrue. There were cross-girders in the core and, I believe, at the three “mechanical floors”. Apart from that, the wide floor assemblies had only lightweight trusses. This can be confirmed from original photographs and films taken during construction. It was an essential weakness of the Twin Towers.

            Please try to post only accurate facts. Inaccuracies will provoke me to correct them.

          • John Goss

            “It would only accelerate under gravity in freefall” as I said Kempe. Acceleration would be slowed every time the mass above hit something. Even NIST engineers chose to ignore Newtonian physics because they knew they were on a loser if they included it in their calculations. In freefall there is no resistance. In the twin towers there was a lot of resistance.

            Newton’s Cradle helps explain his Third Law on the Conservation of Momentum as simply as possible. Even Clark might understand it.

            http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-9319529-stock-footage-newton-s-cradle-over-white-background-with-sound-desk-toy-pendulum-being-activated.html

            You can buy one for £6.00 (plus P&P). I suggest you and Clark do. When you have finished playing with it weld a sheet of steel to one end (either end). Let the ball bearing at the unwelded end go and see what happens. The twin towers were anchored to the ground with an incredibly solid base. Your welded plate would be nowhere near as solid.

            https://www.amazon.co.uk/Newtons-Cradle-Executive-Desktop-Toy/dp/B001EJC2JI

            I have tried with basic physics to explain as simply as possible why the towers could not have come down in almost freefall. This is my last attempt. If you cannot understand this you are beyond help.

          • Clark

            John, why are you even bothering to argue about the strength or materials of the buildings? Chandler’s argument is that “acceleration of the top block down through the lower block which previously supported it is impossible due to the inevitable Newtonian reaction”. It makes NO reference to the strength of the “blocks” nor what material they are made from, so it should mean that no structure whatsoever can collapse. This is how I knew, immediately, that this argument was wrong. It disregards the geometry of the buildings.

            The pendulums of Newton’s Cradle are optimised to conserve kinetic energy by colliding elastically; that’s why it keeps going for quite a while. Collisions in the collapses of the Twin Towers were mostly inelastic, and thus dissipated kinetic energy into deformation of the structure. Are you familiar with elastic and inelastic collision? Presumably not, or you would have known that Newton’s Cradle is inappropriate. Yet again you demonstrate your ignorance.

        • Kempe

          If you consider the structure below to be solid then the falling mass must also have been solid as it was constructed in the same manner!

          You have consider the car in your allegory ploughing into a field of young saplings but still accelerating as the falling section would continue to accelerate downwards under gravity. There is no equivalent force pushing the lower floors upward. The building would remain in equilibrium under it’s usual static loads but would not be able to resist the dynamic forces. Is the difference between resting a sledgehammer on a chair or swinging it down over your head.

          • John Goss

            It would only accelerate under gravity in freefall. And that could not happen because there were solid structures beneath, solid structures that had stood the test of time. In freefall you will only accelerate until you hit something. Back to trees assume a tree fell from a hill into other trees. What would happen is the tree would come to a halt very quickly all the other trees would not fall like dominoes or a house of cards. Don’t you realise how ridiculous your ideas are? My God Kempe. Think about it man.

          • John Goss

            “Is the difference between resting a sledgehammer on a chair or swinging it down over your head.”

            Not quite. Swinging it down implies extra force than gravity. But even if this was right you could only add additional force once with the sledgehammer. I used a sledgehammer to knock down a small garden wall this summer. It was well-cemented and took a long time. The force you are talking about is mass times acceleration (due to gravity). You would not have any additional force like swinging. You could drop it using its own weight. It would stop very quickly.

          • John Goss

            “If you consider the structure below to be solid then the falling mass must also have been solid as it was constructed in the same manner!”

            We’re getting somewhere at last. So whether it is floors in a building, cubes of ice (remember that), or blocks of metal, the mass is the same. I actually like Clark’s analogy of doughnuts on a pole (top of page). They all behave the same. But your physics disagrees with that. Mmm!

            https://shed83a.smugmug.com/keyword/doughnut/i-z2mdXxC/A

          • Clark

            John, I admit that I’m at a complete loss in understanding your thinking, and I have absolutely no idea what criteria you’re using to decide what to takes as true or false. I am completely mystified.

            “So whether it is floors in a building, cubes of ice (remember that), or blocks of metal, the mass is the same”

            Eh? What does this even mean? The same as what? “One: People aren’t wearing enough hats”.

            “You could drop [a sledgehammer] using its own weight. It would stop very quickly”

            …depending upon what you dropped it onto, yes, it might. And all the energy and momentum it had gained in the drop would be dissipated and transferred in that brief instant of deceleration. You could estimate the force imparted by considering impulse, most simply reckoned as force times time. This is how you’d go about calculating the dynamic load it’d exert upon whatever it hit. Because t is small, F is large.

            John, I think that there’s so little overlap in our thinking that I may as well stop discussing with you.

          • John Goss

            “John, I admit that I’m at a complete loss in understanding your thinking”.

            You would be Clark. I’m an engineer.

            Just before I stop wasting my time on you, it was quite obvious what I was talking about to anybody but an egit (which you are not). Don’t pretend you did not see the ice cube experiment but just in case ice on ice, same mass, like-metal on like-metal, (I know you saw that video which included trying to burn through cans) same mass, like-floor on like-floor same mass (furnishings might make a small difference). And your doughnuts on a pole. You can drop them from five doughnuts up and they would still not push down the others into the floor. You have no grasp whatsover of Newton.

            You just annoy everybody. Perhaps it is not deliberate. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Nevertheless you drive people away with your anti-physics nonsense and still believe the unbelievable. You cannot imagine how frustrating this is to those of us who have tried to show you there is something wrong with the sciences of NIST and other official fairy stories.

          • Clark

            If you’re an engineer then I’m the pope.

            You were a machine operator, John. There’s nothing wrong with that. But pretending to be what you’re not, for political purposes, is reprehensible.

          • Kempe

            ” It would only accelerate under gravity in freefall ”

            How do figure that out? Drop anything and it accelerates under gravity even if it’s a feather or a sheet of paper that falls slowly because of air resistance. You also have to remember that as the supporting columns fail and the unsupported floor adds another 1,000 tons or so to the falling mass so it’s gaining weight and speed as it falls.

          • Clark

            “As you add mass, the velocity goes down. Law of conservation of momentum”

            True. And then gravity accelerates it again in the gap of empty air before the next floor assembly.

  • Node

    Clark here:

    Let m(1) be mass of falling material = 10m
    Let v(1) be velocity of falling material = v
    Let m(2) be mass of topmost stationary floor assembly = m
    Let v(2) be velocity of topmost stationary floor assembly = zero

    How did the top 10/11 floors compact into a mass of 10m before colliding with the first stationary floor?

    • Clark

      I do not claim that they so compacted. It is merely a simplification. There are justifications, as I expect you are aware, or could figure out. For instance, I assumed a fall of one storey, but the other nine units of mass fell from between two and ten times that. Etc…

      You take issue. Can John Goss assume you agree with him? Because he will…

        • Clark

          I was accused of ignoring conservation of momentum. It’s just a figure to work with for the mass of the falling material. What would you choose?

          Should readers now assume that you support buried nuclear weapons?

          • Clark

            Node, thanks for helping me to clarify my thinking. +No+ consideration of momentum alone will show that the collapse cannot accelerate (when averaged over at least a one storey drop), since +all+ the buildings’ mass, stationary or falling, is subject to gravity which, given the chance, will cause it to accelerate.

            Only sufficiently high values of mechanical resistance can lead to an overall deceleration of the collapses.

            I think this implies that if an initial one-storey fall of material is sufficient to collapse the one floor below it, it is inevitable that all the other floors beneath will fail, too. A floor either arrests the collapse, or the collapse proceeds into its next one-storey drop with an additional initial downward velocity.

          • Node

            You say that it was a progressive collapse, that the resistance of each stationary floor was overcome individually. If that is the case, then it must be true of the upper falling floors too.

            You have clarified that the upper eleven floors weren’t compacted when they began falling. Therefore when the floor above the fracture line hit the floor below the fracture line, it wasn’t a collision of 10m versus m, it was m versus m.

            Before we examine the implications of this, do you agree with me so far?

          • Clark

            But I think I see what you’re getting at. You’re asking; why take the top, falling section as a unit, but treat the lower, stationary section floor-by-floor?

            That’d be a fair question, but I think that by a few storeys into the collapse a “buffer zone” of much debris would have developed between the standing and falling sections, evening things out, and my momentum guestimate would be roughly valid. It all depends upon exactly how the collapses proceeded – we’d be into the realm of FEA simulation.

            But just from observation of the videos, the ejections indicating the collapse front with toppling of the perimeter sections lagging somewhat behind, it seems that the interior structure was bearing the brunt of falling material, the structure immediately within the perimeter being floor assemblies. Observably, the perimeters of the standing sections were not entrained into the collapses, so reckoning of momentum should consider stationary floor assemblies impacted (roughly sequentially) by the falling section.

          • Clark

            I think m versus m is probably too literal for a guestimate like this; we don’t know where the upper perimeter fell. But continue if you like; it’s quite interesting.

          • Node

            I think m versus m is probably too literal for a guestimate like this …..

            You’re the one that introduced the simplifications.

            ….. we don’t know where the upper perimeter fell.

            Now you’re muddying the water. Explain the relevance of that comment or concede that your original guesstimate (10m versus m) was out by an order of magnitude.

          • Clark

            Node, I’ll agree that 10m versus m was also too literal for the beginning of the collapse, but maintain that the overall gist is about right later on. At least I bother putting figures on things, unlike “engineer” Goss. It’s not me muddying the waters – we’re discussing a collapse; chaos and uncertainty are unavoidable. There’s no need for such aggressive insistence upon concession, unless you wish to dominate me like John Goss seems to. Why do Truthers get so aggressive? Just get on with your implications; it was getting interesting.

          • Clark

            We don’t know where, or if, the upper perimeter impacted upon the structure below, but if it telescoped inside the lower section of perimeter and landed on the outer edges of the uppermost floor assembly, the first impact was a whole lot more than 10m, possibly impacting as a unit.

          • Node

            Clark speaking plainlyI’ll agree that 10m versus m was also too literal for the beginning of the collapse [There is no meaning of the word “literal” that makes sense in this context]

            One of Clark’s simplifications :
            We don’t know where, or if, the upper perimeter impacted upon the structure below, but if it telescoped inside the lower section of perimeter and landed on the outer edges of the uppermost floor assembly, the first impact was a whole lot more than 10m, possibly impacting as a unit.

            No, Clark, you’re not debating in good faith. You won’t admit to a gross error in your calculations and instead introduce a contrived convoluted unprovable proposition to fill the gap. And rather than talk engineering, you talk personalities, attacking John Goss while accusing me of being aggressive. Work out the implications for yourself, they’re obvious.

          • Clark

            Node, it is in good faith. In my early visualisations of the collapses I imagined the top sections substantially disintegrating as the perimeter and core flexed and moved relative to each other. That scenario would have debris raining down on the topmost stationary floor. I knew it wouldn’t all impact at once, but then when enough had impacted to break it, the rest would pass straight through with no sharing of momentum. Swings versus roundabouts. There’s only so much you can do on the back of a fag packet without going to full-blown FEA – which no Truther would trust in any case.

            Of course you support John Goss. All Truthers automatically support all others – it’s your very own conspiracy, which you project onto all and sundry. I put up with a hell of a lot more than I give out on this thread, and I’m sick of effectively being called stupid (and occasionally, an evil liar) by someone who refuses to post clear physical arguments.

            Now kindly get on with your implications about momentum – or have they evaporated?

          • Clark

            Oh I think I’ve guessed. To be “arguing in good faith” (by Node’s standard) I need to say “oh yes, it’s m versus m – both floors break each other” so that Node can go on to parrot Chandler’s wrong argument that an eleven floor top section will be arrested eleven floors down “because reaction is equal and opposite” (which neglects that gravity works downwards on both sections).

            Cue utter absence of further physical argument on this matter from Node. Apologies in advance if I’ve got this wrong…

  • Sam

    HI
    When the towers started to fall down, they fell down in less than 10 seconds into their own footprint
    This would have violated the laws of physics and the only explanation (other than a new novel weapon) is that there were explosives on the supporting framework.
    I choose to believe in the laws of physics arther than a corrupt media.
    Its a while since I looked at the documentaries but if I remember rightly for a 2 week period the security company at the towers was changed and work was done.
    There is a video showing the owner of the towers saying “we pulled tower no 7”
    The airline stocks were shorted just before the event.
    The BBC announcer, Jane Standley announced tower no 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it actually did. THe BBC say they have ‘lost the tapes’!
    …..

    • Kempe

      When the towers started to fall down, they fell down in less than 10 seconds into their own footprint

      No they took 14 to 16 seconds.

      This would have violated the laws of physics

      It certainly would because it would’ve required them to accelerate faster than gravity. This is clearly impossible so therefore wrong.

      Its a while since I looked at the documentaries but if I remember rightly for a 2 week period the security company at the towers was changed and work was done.

      Only part of one tower was shut down and then only for a few hours, even two weeks wouldn’t have been enough to rig all three buildings with explosives.

      There is a video showing the owner of the towers saying “we pulled tower no 7”

      Not quite but so what?

      The airline stocks were shorted just before the event.

      Yes because it was known they were about to release some poor financial results which would’ve pushed down share prices. One subsequently went bankrupt.

      The BBC announcer, Jane Standley announced tower no 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it actually did. THe BBC say they have ‘lost the
      tapes’!

      It must’ve her what done it then.

      http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm

    • Clark

      Sam, I too trust physics above a corrupt anyone. Most of the claims you are repeating are untrue, so the sources of those claims were misleading you. Explosives simply make no sense as a physical explanation of the collapses of the Twin Towers. The collapses seem to have started due to buckling under load:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPYTVjxug

      I too would welcome a proper investigation into 9/11, but there’s far more to 9/11 than the collapses of buildings.

      • Clark

        “There is a video showing the owner of the towers saying “we pulled tower no 7””

        Actually it was Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder, and if his “pull it” remark was accusing anyone it was the Fire Department of New York:

        “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

        Over 340 firefighters were killed on 9/11. There’s something disturbingly close to blaming the victims about this meme, and I object to that:

        https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/larrysilverstein's%22pullit%22quote

  • Patsy Shafchuk

    I believe you are wrong about 9/11.
    Military grade thermite was found in dust samples at the site.
    Read more at AE9/11 Truth, (http://www.ae911truth.org) a page compiled by architects and engineers explaining that the official story cannot be true. They are calling for a new investigation.

    • Kempe

      The components of thermite were allegedly found in samples but as these are iron oxide (rust), aluminium and sulphur, materials that were present in the fabric of all three buildings, that’s hardly surprising.

      • Clark

        (further to Kempe’s comment)

        …and even if thermite was found (which I doubt), it says nothing about where it came from. Always beware unfounded inferences – reality is complex.

        • John Goss

          Hey Dickhead with his own theory of Newton’s Laws, don’t question my credentials as an engineer. I spent five years serving an indentured apprenticeship to learn my trade as a toolmaker, working on jig-boring, bench-work, surface-grinding, cylindrical-grinding, machine tool maintenance, lathes and milling machines (universal, horizontal, vertical, and turret-milling machines). I spent a further fourteen years working at my trade in a variety of toolrooms on the whole and specialising in turret-milling before going to university.

          I have worked in contract-toolrooms (where speed was important as well as accuracy). I have set automatics (including servomatics) which were operated by machine operators (and there is nothing wrong with being a machine operator – which I was not). I have produced and formed larger turbine-blades with a specifically designed leading and trailing edges from nimonic steel on Hydrotel machines. My job was highly-skilled and you have no knowledge of what it entailed. Nor would I expect you to understand it if you did see the process. My worked entailed reading technical drawings and making prototypes using all kinds of metals to very high and accurate tolerances. Your insults are the reason why I am choosing from now on to ignore you even though I will read the thread to try and help people avoid your ignorant trolling.

          As to your stupid assessment of the quakes, yes the camera which was clearly on a tripod, would shake when the ground shook, with a possible nuclear explosion. But in the video I linked it was motionless until that event. You do come out with some shit. You really do!

          Nano-thermite.

          http://wtfrly.com/2013/08/24/911truth-wtfacts-19-nano-thermite-particles-found-in-world-trade-center-dust/#.WFA3FX1YfIU

          • Clark

            If you’re an engineer, then discuss like an engineer. Constant appeals to your own authority smack of nothing but arrogance. Fine, you followed other people’s plans. I see nothing in your list of occupations that would require you to calculate forces, momentum, energy or anything else. If you know of simple physical arguments as you keep claiming, post them. The one time you did link to someone else’s paper, your comment about it suggested a complete lack of understanding of it.

            And try to comment in the right place.

          • Uzmark

            John,
            Clark has assumed the role of doughnut on this thread. After 5 years and 90 pages I don’t think that will change.
            I think there is a clue in the thread immediately preceding this one where there is clear concern from Craig over criticism that the blog is full of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
            The only thing I have taken from it is that someone so dedicated and with so much time and resources cannot come up with anything to change anybody’s mind. And that it has served to vastly extend the thread discussion which would otherwise have pretty much died out because almost everyone else is in broad agreement. Except that it would have been nice if the discussion could have gone beyond the how and on to the implications of the act. Instead of Clark constantly bringing it back to the method of collapse of the first two buildings

          • Clark

            “However certain commenters have not posted for more than 24 hours and that is encouraging”

            Ah, so it was YOU wanting to drive ME from the thread. You were projecting your motivations onto me all along.

            Thought as much.

  • Andrew H

    I remember seeing amateur footage of the Pentagon crash on Australian TV right after the attack but never saw it again anywhere after that. I’ve always wondered why. I’m sure there’s no conspiracy, but maybe some security concerns resulted in the footage not being aired again

      • Bobm

        I am not, like John, an engineer.
        But I have worked hard at envisaging a scale-model test of the pancake theory that exponents of the official explanation espouse.

        The best I’ve been able to manage requires a thought experiment in which the simultaneous removal of one or two upper stages of the vertical members of the model, whether it be made of balsa or titanium, or some intermediate tensile material, is achieved either mechanically or by controlled explosion.

        (Clark should also, I think, have included this among his “grounds for suspicion” post, by the way.)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBAlxJVwMgc

        I HOPE CRAIG IS READING THIS

        In my thought experiment, the result is always the same. The upper levels drop a bit, and either lodge on the lower ones, or fall off.

        When I read Clark’s and Kempe’s posts I am strongly reminded of Zeno’s fallacies. Perhaps they should take up philosophy?

        • Node

          Bobm, I have the same problem trying to envisage the mechanics of a spontaneous total collapse. Somewhere way back in the lost mists of this topic, I offered a million pounds to anyone who could construct a model of one of the twin towers and make it totally collapse into its own footprint by setting fire to it near the top. The model could be at any scale and made from any materials, as long as it had 110 stories and had the same exterior proportions as the original. Nobody has yet claimed my money

          I didn’t realise at the time that someone who actually has a million made a similar offer and it remained unclaimed for years till he got disillusioned, withdrew the offer and spent his time and money more productively.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Walter

          • Clark

            OK, imagine your model at, say, 1/100 scale. It’s over 4 metre tall, the perimeter columns are 3.6 mm square folded out of sheet steel about the thickness of cooking foil. It has 110 “floors”, each consisting of 1mm ceramic on steel so fine you can barely see it.

            It stands on its own, but I wouldn’t try sitting on it.

            Now, what’s wrong? Oh yes, it’s under a 1/100th of the gravity gradient. OK, dial up the gravitational constant on your model by a factor of 100 to compensate…

          • Node

            You’re missing the point. In this thought experiment, you have to describe how you’d construct a scale model which would support itself until you set fire to it somewhere near the top, whereupon it does a total collapse into its own footprint.

            You can make the supporting framework as strong or as weak as you want, out of steel, plastic, toothpicks, or pipe cleaners. The joints can be soldered, welded, bolted, glued or dove-tailed and as many per floor as you want. The walls can be paper, foil, plywood, steel sheet or nonexistent. You can place weight on the floors on leave the rooms empty

            The only restrictions are it has to have 110 floors and have the same exterior proportions as the Twin Towers.

            Describe where you would set the fire, and the subsequent series of events which would cause all 110 floors to fall straight downwards without stopping or slewing sideways.

          • Clark

            I’m not missing the point. You’ve stipulated 110 “floors”, and consequently practical constraints limit the builder to scales of around 1:100 or worse. There’s not enough distance between “floors” for significant velocity to develop and kinetic energy to accumulate, and you can’t fix that without scaling g accordingly.

            It would make more sense to build a largish three-storey model and see if acceleration of the collapse front could be achieved comparing the first drop to the second. If it can, you’ve proven that global collapse is possible.

          • Node

            My apologies. What a fool I am to believe I knew what I was asking. Thank you for pointing out that I wasn’t asking what I thought I was asking. I’ve learned my lesson. From now on I’ll just supply blank posts with a question mark at the end and you can make up the questions you want to answer then complain that my question mark was a bit aggressive.

          • Clark

            So if you did know what you were asking, you were deliberately and knowingly trying to mislead readers to find gravity collapse of the Twin Towers less likely than in reality, by getting them to visualise a model with too many floors to have realistic gaps between each.

        • John Goss

          Thanks for reposting that video Bobm. When I posted it the response was that Chris Bollyn is wrong and the video is anti-Israeli with no evidence that Israelis were involved.

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-99/#comment-634451

          However certain commenters have not posted for more than 24 hours and that is encouraging. According to Craig’s latest post Jack Straw has purportedly seen the light regarding Israeli actions in Palestine. So there is hope that others have similarly seen the error of their ways and their ‘science’.

          While I’m commenting I want to try and clarify something regarding an attack on my claim to be an engineer. I know that most people in mechanical engineering would accept that a toolmaker is a precision engineer. However others may not even know what a toolmaker does. Toolmakers can do many things from making and designing jigs and fixtures, tools and gauges to making prototypes of precision parts and experimental work for numerous industries, including medical apparatus, automobile, aerospace and defence industries. I served a five year apprenticeship in a Ministry of Defence Royal Ordnance Factory. Five years learning a trade is longer than a first or second degree and almost as long as some medics take to become qualified. I am sure medics would tell you the same as toolmakers that their training (end of apprenticeship) is only the start of becoming an accomplished professional at their respective skills.

          In the early nineteen seventies I took out a provisional patent specification for an adjustable slot drill. I had previously made a prototype with the help of a precision grinder and tested it to ensure that it did the job it was designed to do. There was nothing on the market and I am not sure there is anything today. It covered a range of sizes which turned out to be one of its disadvantages. This I learned at a meeting at which I showed the cutter to a Dormer manager. He was honest and told me that they would not want a cutter that covered a range of sizes when they could sell all the cutters in that range individually. This would cut down avenues of current sales rather than expand them. It was a fair point. He further told me that they would not want to manufacture them unless a competitor brought them out. In the end, with patent lawyer costs, which are not cheap, I decided to cut my losses.

          When later I went to the University of Birmingham my final year’s dissertation was called: “Individual Inventors, Less Developed Countries and the World Patent System.” As part of the original research I wrote to 100 individual, as opposed to corporate, inventors to discover the problems they faced. The findings were published in ‘The Inventor’. I would not want anybody going away with the idea that a toolmaker is simply a ‘machine operator’ and not the highly-skilled engineers we are.

          http://www.precisionengineerlocal.co.uk/what_do_precision_engineers_do.asp

          • Clark

            John Goss, December 15, 20:13; it sounds as though the work you did was very skilled, and far more technical that of a machine operator. I’m sorry for mistaking you for such, but I have seen nothing in your comments to suggest that you have any knowledge of calculating forces or energy, construction of vector and stress-strain diagrams, or anything of the like. You repeatedly emphasise the “strength” of “structural steel”, but you never refer to any of the properties of materials such as yield strength, shear strength, bulk modulus, etc.

            Do you have any such abilities or experience?

        • Kempe

          Anti-semitism and Holocaust Denial. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel today.

          ” In my thought experiment, the result is always the same. ”

          Possibly because you’re not thinking hard enough.

          • Bobm

            Holocaust Denial has never featured in any post of mine.
            [And I have close jewish friends and colleagues.]
            “Antisemitism” accusations are stock-in-trade/SOP in the hasbara project, are they not?

            My thought experiment is strictly mechanical/physical.
            Perhaps you could address Node’s challenge, instead of slandering me?
            Are you up to it?

            I am not holding my breath.

          • Clark

            Kempe, to be fair, I didn’t see any Holocaust denial in the video Bobm linked to. It certainly accuses Israel and Zionists of 9/11 on no direct evidence whatsoever, and verges on anti-Semitism; “They Think You’re Stupid” – who’s “They”?

            Bobm, December 17, 17:28:

            “…I have close jewish friends and colleagues”

            You talk to them about your belief that 9/11 was an Israeli operation, do you? Somehow, I suspect not.

  • jonathan booth

    Given that fires beneath Ground Zero could not be extinguished for several months despite the application of millions of gallons of water and chemical deoxidants commonly deployed to smother similalrly large structural fires, it’s safe to acknowledge something was present within the rubble, to enable the fires to continue. Lithium ion batteries.could provide one such source. Thermates would provide another. Analysis of metal microspheres, dust and debris samples collected by independent forensic investigators, including the United states Geologic Survey, matches that associated with the presence of thermates. These composites are used extensively, but not exclusively, in the demolition industry.

    It’s possible that thermite welding was used during construction, but this was back in the late sixties, early seventies; any traces would be undetectable by 2001

    I doubt the truth will ever out, but many have turned the outcome to their political and financial advantage. May the deaths and life-long suffering of the victims’ families, friends and others afflicted, remain on their conscience, whoever they are

    • John Goss

      “May the deaths and life-long suffering of the victims’ families, friends and others afflicted, remain on their conscience, whoever they are”. I would share that sentiment Jonathan but for the fact that the sociopaths behind this needless mass-murder are unlikely to have a conscience.

      Why the fires burned so long is not possible to say. But they did. Only by challenging the official narrative is there any chance of finding out why.

        • John Goss

          Yes, probably military grade nanothermite. It could be used for cutting through girders quite easily. To my mind, though few of us really know, it seems doubtful it was responsible alone for the furnace that was still burning three months after the event.

          • Clark

            Lysias, it isn’t obvious what was found. Microspheres of iron and other material were found, but could have existed before the attacks. Red-grey chips could have been primer paint. The constituents of thermite were all present in the building materials, and the “energetic materials” maybe didn’t exactly explode, and reacted at temperatures hundreds of degrees below the ignition temperature of thermite.

            I’m afraid it’s another morass of dodgy claims exaggerated by layers and layers of the usual Truther Chinese whispers; if there’s any truth in it at all it’ll take days of sifting through exaggerated claims to find it…

            …and this is the essential problem with Trutherism; they corrupt the informational environment until it’s too exhausting to proceed. Then they stand arrogantly over the mess of confusion they’ve created and triumphantly proclaim “you can’t disprove demolition”.

      • Node

        Pleas go away and calculate how much thermite would be needed to keep burning for several months or even a few days.

        Straw man argument. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the molten metal was thermite still burning weeks later. It might have been the result of the use of thermite, but it is not up to Truthers to explain it. The existence of molten metal in the rubble of wtc weeks after 9/11 can’t be denied – there are too many credible witnesses. It is therefore up to Believers such as yourself to explain it since it doesn’t fit with the official explanation.

        Come on Kempe, either dispute its existence or provide a credible explanation. What you gonna go for? An exothermic reaction between iron and steam?

        • Clark

          I’ve asked this before and been ignored; how much molten metal? The credible reports refer to trickles. One refers to it as “running down the channel rails”; what are channel rails and what are they made of? If they’re made of steel and the flowing metal was also steel, it must have been flowing from a source as it would solidify rather quickly as its heat conducted into the channel rails.

          • Clark

            There was quite a bit of very hot metal, but it was pulled out with grabs so it wasn’t molten. Are we really lacking sufficient heat source? I’ve never seen any attempt to quantify. A two-storey house fire has a lot of fuel. A 60m by 60m housing estate conflagration would be an inferno. Now multiply by 55 to get 110 storeys-worth of fuel, and compress into the size of the debris piles. Add underground parking garages with all their plastics, fuel and engine oil etc. Claims of too much heat for too long need to be quantified.

      • John Goss

        Have you taken a look at Newton’s cradle yet? Real physics in practice is hard to contradict. I guess you will do what you normally do when challenged by engineering. Ignore it.

        Yet you will still come back in the future trying to divert reality with speculative tests in attempting to prove the flawed NIST version of events. Can a leopard . . .

          • Clark

            John, as an engineer, do you understand the difference between elastic and inelastic collision? And if you do, why did you post Newton’s Cradle as an analogy for the transfer of momentum in the collapses of the Twin Towers?

    • lysias

      Bad tactics to start with a 9/11 investigation. Too sensitive a matter that threatens too many people with power. Start with something less sensitive, like the JFK assassination. Later, after the CIA has been discredited and Trump’s oower consolidated, it will be time to move on to 9/11.

      Because of Israeli involvement, I fear Trump too will not be willing to tell us the whole truth about those matters, or about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

      • John Goss

        You’re right. Trump is a businessman turned politician. When he gets into the White House he will learn there are people to whom he will be obliged to pay his respects and deference. The secret services, who are getting their respective houses to change the law so that everybody, and not just the wealthy and powerful, is monitored so should the time arise they can be blackmailed, will already have enough on Trump to apply the screw if he starts stepping out of line. If he is incorruptible, and if the White House prostitutes cannot make him more vulnerable, the likelihood is another JFK conspiracy.

        Doubtful he will try to change the status quo. I hope history proves me wrong. 🙂

  • Node

    BobM : “But I have worked hard at envisaging a scale-model test of the pancake theory […] In my thought experiment, the result is always the same. The upper levels drop a bit, and either lodge on the lower ones, or fall off.”

    Kempe : “Possibly because you’re not thinking hard enough.”

    Kempe, you suggest that YOU can envisage a scale-model test of the pancake theory. Please decribe it for our benefit. Remember – every joint on each individual floor must fail simultaneously, then the same on the next floor, then the next, ….. 100 times.

      • Clark

        Remember to do this scale experiment in a big centrifuge, to increase g to maintain the gravitational potential across the reduced height of the model. Wouldn’t want to forget Newton’s gravitation, eh John?

        • Clark

          Oops, I replied thinking John had linked the “flaming tin can scale model” video again. Instead he’s just displaying his ignorance of elastic and inelastic conservation of momentum again.

    • Clark

      Node, December 17, 23:48

      “Kempe, you suggest that YOU can envisage a scale-model test of the pancake theory. Please decribe it for our benefit. Remember – every joint on each individual floor must fail simultaneously, then the same on the next floor, then the next, ….. 100 times”

      The pile-driver or crush-down/crush-up theory eliminates the need to fine-tune any pancake theory; ie. the falling sections retained some degree of integrity.

      We keep hearing how strong the perimeter was, but that the strength of the lower section of the perimeter could have guided the collapses is always ignored when the argument is that the falling material should have “slipped off” sideways.

      A hundred floors is silly for a scale model because the inter-floor gaps will be too small to permit velocity to build up, unless you can increase g. Just model less floors with more realistic gaps between them. If the collapses could start by moving roughly straight down they should be more likely to do so as the collapse front accelerates and momentum increases.

      • Node

        A hundred floors is silly for a scale model

        According to Kempe, you’re not thinking hard enough. Take it up with him, not me.

        • Clark

          No. YOU stipulated 110 “floors”. It’s YOUR stipulation that makes the scale model impractical by making the gap between floors too small for sufficient velocity and kinetic energy to accumulate.

          The more you space the floors apart, the easier it becomes for the collapse to accelerate. Simple physics.

  • lysias

    Paul Krugman just said in a tweet that Trump has an incentive to legitimize his presidency with a false flag attack the way Bush Junior was legitimized by 9/11. Very close to an admission that 9/11 was a false flag.

  • John Goss

    “I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers.”

    This I believe is the wrong question to ask. Craig should have asked his friend in the construction industry if it was possible within two hours to bring down two towers when the solid structures beneath them were not affected by the planes that allegedly flew into the world trade centre buildings.

    Also the answer he got was speculative and not based on any known science. What men? Using what explosive techniques? Were the explosives set off by radio control without any cabling involved? Does his friend know what the state of the art was at that time? Is his friend a civil engineer? Was his friend bullshitting?

    To get a proper assessment it would need more than one friend’s opinion. There are 2,400 Architects and Engineers who would disagee with him.

    • Node

      “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.”

      Craig should have asked a friend in the destruction industry, someone with experience of demolition. They would have been able to tell him that 12 miles of cable weren’t necessary because the charges can be detonated wirelessly. They might also have pointed out that when people talk about it taking months to prepare a skyscraper for explosive demolition, they are including time to strip out everything of value first (wiring, plumbing, lighting, electronics, lift cables, etc) then everything that might become a dangerous projectile (furniture, plasterboard, glass windows, asbestos, etc).

      You could do it much faster and with many fewer people if you wanted to maximise rather than minimise death and destruction.

      • Clark

        “You could do it much faster and with many fewer people if you wanted to maximise rather than minimise death and destruction”

        This depends on what you’re actually claiming. You seem to agree with John Goss, and he claims that the collapse front had to decelerate (to comply with some unstated formulation from Newton’s laws) unless explosives were used. If it couldn’t accelerate globally, it couldn’t accelerate through a single floor. Therefore your scheme requires explosives rigged on every floor below the impact zones. Further, you claim the collapses to be “too symmetrical” to have occurred without explosives, so you need multiple charges on every floor. That’s far more work than a normal demolition.

        Det cord is made of explosive; it’s a way of taking detonation to multiple charges without electricity. Without it, each of your charges needs either batteries or an external power supply and becomes vulnerable to premature detonation. With wireless detonation, premature detonation becomes even more likely; to simulate progressive collapse you’ll need at least fifty independent channels, all working reliably inside the Faraday cage of the buildings’ steel structure, under conditions of fire with high likelihood of arcing mains and battery electricity producing broad band radio frequency interference.

        Personally, I wouldn’t like to try it without a rehearsal, or preferably several. But of course The Invincibles knew they could get it spot on, no question.

        • Node

          Clark : “This depends on what you’re actually claiming.”

          What I’m claiming is quite clear. Respond to it or ignore it. Don’t make up your own question to respond to.

          • Clark

            That’s right Node, keep it vague; should be able to shoehorn it into something marginally convincing for some ill-defined form of demolition, at least for the less technical. Meanwhile, keep insisting upon complete detail from Kempe, because Kempe’s The Enemy.

            You’re replying to and supporting John Goss. You never question of disagree with John Goss. John Goss says that no collision can accelerate through one storey without explosives (and cites Newton, but never says how). Therefore, you’re insisting on multiple charges on every floor, and one independent detonation channel per floor. I say it’s impractical, especially for an event that has to work perfectly, in the midst of chaos, first time, twice, with no rehearsal possible.

          • Clark

            “Hello Onstage, this is Control Desk; can we just run through the channels make sure we’ve got’em all in the right order?”

            – “OK testing, testing, one, channel one…”

      • Vronsky

        “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.”

        I’ve commented before (it seems a thousand years ago) that if the twin towers were brought down as suggested by NIST, then we have a revolution in the demolition industry. Think of the savings: not nine months, less than a day. Just a dozen men, no cabling at all. Take your team to a floor near the top, sever a few columns, place a large vat of aviation spirit, flick a fag-end into it and retire to a safe distance. Job done. As a bonus you only have to do two buldings like this for a neighbouring third to fall down by itself.

        Absurd.

        • Clark

          Well vérinage demolition does work. However, most buildings aren’t as flimsy as the Twin Towers were.

          Anyway, buildings over 30 storeys or so are generally deconstructed piecemeal rather than demolished. The problem with your suggestion is the amount of damage done to surrounding buildings – oh I know Truthers say that the Twin Towers “fell into their own footprints” but like so much that Truthers say it simply isn’t true. They fell over a much larger area than that, destroying and damaging many other buildings:

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3b/20050601212330%21September_17_2001.jpg

          Got anything but trite sound-bites? You seem to have gone quiet about Newton’s laws, but if it were those incorrect physical arguments that had you convinced of demolition, by now you should have had second thoughts.

    • Clark

      The AIA Resolution Mailer is about only Building 7, the only collapse that is really questionable, and which hurt no one.

      I tried to watch the A&E 9/11 Truth video Meet the Experts, but it has to rank among the most boring videos of all time so I skipped parts. It’s also highly edited (ridiculously so in some places) so I have to suspect that it was constructed from all the most juicy parts of the various professionals’ monologues. However, many who appeared did not speak in support of explosive demolition of the Twin Towers. Many who spoke of the Twin Towers expressed their concerns that the collapses occurred so soon and proceeded so quickly, symptoms of weak buildings.

      I don’t oppose another investigation of the collapses – or rather, an investigation of the previous investigations, since much of the physical evidence no longer exists – but I’ve seen no serious evidence for explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and I think that full disclosure and reinvestigation of other aspects of 9/11 are far more important.

    • John Goss

      Yes, they are certainly right. That is because they understand engineering and physics.

      I have many times mentioned Newton’s third law concerning action and reaction (equal and opposite) and been ignored by the ignoramuses. I even gave them a visual and mechanical example through Newton’s Cradle and it cannot get more simple. One ball of a certain mass hits another ball of equal mass. The impact passes through another three balls of the same mass which remain (to all intents stationary) transferring the energy to the fifth ball of the same mass, which swings on its pendulum before returning and hitting the the fourth ball, which remains stationary together with the third and second ball, returning energy to the initial impact ball.

      Because there is no resistance this process continues until forces like friction and gravity bring it to a halt. What it is in virtual effect is a horizontal depiction of the upper storeys of the twin towers crashing into the lower stories. But put something at one end of this and you will see an altogether different picture. As an engineer I speculate that the impact ball will hit the other four balls and very little transferred energy will be seen. I think even a piece of cardboard would suffice as an anchor.

      No amount of design strength was spared in the anchoring of the twin towers. They were not anchored by cardboard. They were solid, almost as solid as the rock at their foundations. All their strength was vertical. I put Newton’s Cradle up as an example of what would have to happen for tranferred energy to pass from one storey to another. In the case of the twin towers with much less initial impact than letting the impact ball go in Newton’s Cradle the reaction to such a small action would have been massive.

      Introducing Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation (remember the apple) does not apply in this case because the towers were already defying gravity (as they were designed to do) and nothing had changed other than a small impact which would have either diverted the mass or tranferred its energy into the storey or stories below. Remember in Newton’s Cradle none of the balls is anchored, allowing a transfer of energy.

      I refuse to debate with some on here who clearly cannot, even with the simple illustration of Newton’s Cradle to help them, grasp the third law which clearly stated, and there is no formula as such, “if a force is exerted on a body, that body reacts with an equal and opposite force on the body that exerted the force”. Very simple. Pity about the simpletons! 🙂

        • Clark

          John, some of your bloopers are absolute blinders! –

          “Because there is no resistance this process continues until forces like friction and gravity bring it to a halt.”

          Gravity is not dissipative, Mr Engineer.

          “…Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation […] does not apply in this case…”

          The meaning of “universal” can be found in the dictionary.

          “All their strength was vertical.”

          Wind load?

          “In the case of the twin towers with much less initial impact than letting the impact ball go in Newton’s Cradle the reaction to such a small action would have been massive”

          Eh? An aircraft strike is “much less” than dropping a small steel ball an inch or so? And the reaction is “massive” rather than equal and opposite?

          I suppose your incessant blagging might convince Node, but not me.

          • Clark

            I love the idea of gravity bringing things to a halt. The solar system has been going, what, about five billion years?

            Do you know any physics at all, John?

      • Clark

        John Goss, Newton’s Cradle demonstrates conservation of momentum and kinetic energy in elastic collisions. Do you, as an engineer, understand the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions? Perhaps you’d demonstrate your understanding of these simple principles with a worked example.

    • Node

      A&E for 9/11 Truth have done a great job here. Good tactics to focus on WTC7 only. Their list of considerations (the “whereas” list”) sets out the definitive case for explosive demolition. If all the points are true, there can be no reasonable doubt that WTC7 was demolished.

      This a really meaty document – it makes a great “battleground” for testing opposing views. When discussing it, please can we all restrict our comments to the events surrounding WTC7, and avoid personal comments.

    • Node

      I’ll start! Does anyone take issue with any part(s) of this “Whereas” ?

      WHEREAS

      the total collapse of WTC 7 exemplified many of the signature features of controlled demolition, including:

      Sudden onset: The roofline of WTC 7 went from being stationary to being in free fall in approximately one-half second.

      Rapidity: The roofline of WTC 7 fell to the ground in less than seven seconds.

      Free fall: For 2.25 seconds of its descent, WTC 7 fell at the rate of gravity over a distance of eight stories, meaning that the lower structure of the building provided no resistance whatsoever.

      Symmetry: WTC 7 fell directly downward through what had been the path of greatest resistance, with the debris deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint.

      Explosions and window breakage: Vertical sequences of explosions and window breakage could be seen running up the north face of WTC 7 as it began to collapse.

      Dismemberment: The steel frame of WTC 7 was almost entirely dismembered.

      Pulverization: Most of WTC 7’s concrete was pulverized to a consistency of sand and gravel.

      Totality: The entire structure of WTC 7 collapsed to the ground, leaving no sections of the building standing.

      • Clark

        I think it’s a very good campaign leaflet (though I wouldn’t call it a “meaty document”) and I hope it gets them enough votes to pass the resolution.

        I could point out a couple of omissions of somewhat contrary evidence, but see no point in doing so considering the mailer’s purpose.

        • Bobm

          As an occasional visitor I am struck by the determination of truthers, here, to continue the already-won technical arguments against apparent hasbara agents.
          I have put this (hasbara) point, explicitly; and got no, coherent, response.

          I have mailed Craig about it.
          I can understand that Node, John Goss, and co will be reluctant to lose this outlet.
          But, frankly, is it helping, now?

          Please, speak up, Node, Lysias, Mr Goss, (who have I missed?)

          What is the point of these endless exchanges with these awful people?

          9/11 was an inside job.

          Is this sub-set of CM’s blog the best place for you excellent people to be showing your knowledge and commitment?

          (Apologies if, as you surely are, you are posting/active, elsewhere.)

          • Clark

            Bobm, are you saying I’m with hasbara, Israeli public diplomacy?

            I (a) just like physics, and hate to see it mangled by the likes of John Goss, (b) think that Saudi Arabia get away with far too much as an “ally” of the US, and (c) hate to see proliferation of these horrible, nonsensical conspiracy theories that seem to target Noam Chomsky, Julian Assange, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Michio Kaku, the New York firefighters, and even Craig Murray.

            What on Earth have I written that makes you think I’m with hasbara? John Goss can tell you that he met me on a protest against one of Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

          • Clark

            “who have I missed?”

            Well actually, you’ve missed me. I’m in favour of a proper investigation – one not based on fucking torture for a start. I’m just convinced, on physical grounds, that (1) the Twin Towers’ collapses were initiated by damage and fire, and that they proceeded so rapidly because they were shit buildings, and (2) that explosives would be worse than useless in producing the collapses as witnessed.

            Oh, and I don’t like the lies, distortions, exaggerations and constant bullying endemic within the so-called “Truth Movement”. Or anywhere else for that matter.

          • John Goss

            I am thinking of looking for somewhere else to start posting. For a start off one individual here, with no more than O level physics, and no practical engineering, is trying to turn the blog into a vendetta against me for holding a different viewpoint (one based on reality). He has no idea that ball bearings suspended from lines are subjected to gravity, but I choose not to engage him in his bitter and facile ramblings, because he cannot even grasp the basics of physics.

            It occurs to most people that no skyscrapers before or since 9/11 have fallen like the twin towers and Building 7 (other than those demolished). This would raise questions in most thinking people’s brains. The reason for it never having happened before or since is it cannot happen. Yes, steel constructions can be unsound in design and fall sometimes. But they fall in a manner that can be envisaged (by most).

            The Tacoma Bridge disaster of 1940 is an example. It takes a while to collapse although put under tremendous tensile stress. Starts about one minute thirty into the film. Watch it and you will see just what stresses and strains steel constructions can withstand. Strong winds seem to be the culprit.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QNV3So7GM

          • Clark

            John Goss, you have been accusing me of ignorance of Newton’s laws for months. It’s tantamount to accusing me of innumeracy. You have called me a “simpleton”, and more than once implied that I’m some kind of Evil Agent.

            What’s sauce for the goose, etc.

            Meanwhile, you loudly claim to be an engineer, but display no engineering knowledge whatsoever. You frequently display gross incompetence in physics. I object to your claims of authority because they are clearly false, ie. dishonest, intended to mislead the unwary.

            I’ve only been giving back because you’ve been dealing out. I will stop when you stop. And don’t lie. You should know full well I was accepted onto a university degree course in physics.

          • Clark

            More dishonest misrepresentation and gross ignorance from John Goss:

            “no skyscrapers before or since 9/11 have fallen like the twin towers and Building 7 (other than those demolished)”

            The collapses of the Twin Towers look nothing like explosive demolition.

            Actually, no building as tall as WTC7 has (or maybe had) ever been explosively demolished. One-shot demolition of such tall buildings is problematic because they’re all in city centres where adjacent buildings would suffer. Consequently, buildings taller than thirty storeys or so are deconstructed instead.

          • Clark

            Well I’ve never seen “vertical sequences of explosions […] running up the north face of WTC 7”, and I haven’t heard them on any of the videos, either. I’ve seen some windows break at the onset of the final collapse, but the mechanical penthouse had long since fallen by then so probably the frames were stressed.

            There are some omissions and some points that seem a bit stretched. But it’s not a definitive argument for demolition; it’s a campaign to pass a resolution, so it seems pedantic to criticise.

            Incidentally, I note that “pulverisation” is the only point that holds for the Twin Towers.

        • Node

          Clark, my question “Is there anything in the list of ‘whereases’ that you substantially disagree with?” was aimed at you.

          Bobm : Lots of us who hang around this thread largely agree with each other, but you will find that none of us totally agree with anyone else. This is because of the amount of misinformation that has been injected into the field, some of it deliberate, some of it misguided. We have all built up our 9/11 overview from different combinations of clues. None of us possess all the clues. Probably all of us have fallen for some false clues.

          So I hang around here to find more clues and try to weed out the false ones. In this latter task I find Kempe a useful sounding board. For whatever motive, he is prepared to put a lot of time into supporting the official narrative. He has access to all the ‘official debunker’ sites, therefore if there is an obvious hole in a clue, Kempe will point it out. Rather than complain about Kempe, you should value him as a useful resource. This thread would be much less useful if every claim went unchallenged.

          The narrative is still developing. Paul Barbara has his finger on many pulses and is usually the first with a new development, such as this latest document from A&E for 9/11. I’ve learned a lot from this thread, and there’s more to come.

          • Clark

            Kempe doesn’t say much personal but just seems to enjoy debunking, and making fun of idiocy. Node seems to think that Kempe is some kind of agent, so I call Node a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I have never seen Kempe defend torture or the wars launched by the US following 9/11. Kempe seems intelligent and honest, and just lost a friend to cancer, so I think your “awful” remark is out of order.

            We all have access to debunking sites; it’s just that Truthers never read them, hence the proliferation of disinformation. Kempe doesn’t seem to know the debunking arguments any better than me; it was me that found the video evidence of the bowing that initiated the collapse of WTC2, and Kempe expressed surprise.

            I have a theory that a snap decision was made to demolish WTC7 after the fall of WTC1. I’m not particularly committed to this theory. It’s just one that I think should be borne in mind because the collapse of WTC7 was so weird.

          • Clark

            Bobm, my 23:31 comment was addressed to you.

            Node, sorry if I caused confusion there; it was Bobm made the “awful people” remark. I answered your question about the “Whereas” points above.

          • Node

            I have a theory that a snap decision was made to demolish WTC7 after the fall of WTC1.

            A brief consideration of the factors involved is enough to conclusively rule out this theory, but you keep repeating it. You’re muddying the water. I’ve previously asked you to suggest a plausible timeline for your theory but you ignored me. I’m asking again. Put up or shut up.

            There are 6 hours and 52 minutes between the collapses of WTC1 and WTC7. In that time you need to obtain the contact details of a specialist criminal trustworthy demolition firm, contact them, persuade them to drop everything they are doing and commit themselves to a historic criminal act, then they need to contact their team of specialist criminal trustworthy demolition experts who we’ll say for the sake of argument all live in New York, then they all need to locate and gather tons of specialist demolition materials and tools then transport themselves and it through blockades, thousands of police, and the rubble of 2 skyscrapers to WTC7 where under the cameras of the world’s media they carry tons of material into a burning building that everybody else is evacuating.

            Don’t forget to include time for locating detailed plans of WTC7, inputting all the necessary data into a computer system, planning and programming the detonation sequence, accessing all the crucial structural points as dictated by the computer model in a smoke-filled burning building with inoperative lifts, placing the explosives and programming the detonators, with repeated delays while you explain your cover story to police, security staff and firemen, plus time to evacuate the demolition team before pushing the red button.

            Sketch out a plausible schedule for the above, or quit distracting the thread with this ridiculous theory.

          • Clark

            I didn’t say it was likely, but regarding WTC7’s collapse, what is?

            “…quit distracting the thread with this ridiculous theory”

            Shalln’t. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be a control freak?

          • Node

            I didn’t say it was likely, but regarding WTC7’s collapse, what is?

            OK, construct an unlikely but possible schedule for your theory.

          • Clark

            I look at it like this.

            It’s unlikely that a building would undergo such rapid, total and roughly symmetrical collapse due to damage and fire.

            It’s unlikely that one building would be pre-rigged in advance for demolition. Foreknowledge could account for it, but that would make the cover-up much more problematic.

            It’s unlikely that two buildings would be pre-rigged for demolition to look like progressive collapses after being struck by aircraft, but that a third would be pre-rigged for demolition of typical appearance without aircraft strike, in fact it would be daft to do so.

            Deciding upon and ordering demolition of WTC7 immediately after the fall of WTC1 would be a rush-job, but maybe that was done and it came down more symmetrically than might be expected under the circumstances. I dunno. It doesn’t seem likely, but then what does?

            I think your real objections are that this idea is original, contravenes Truther lore, and it doesn’t help you argue for demolition of the Twin Towers, to which you have an attachment.

            What would make such a demolition a criminal act?

          • Node

            Above (1.15am) I’ve spelled out why your theory is impossible. I haven’t just declared that it’s impossible, I’ve explained my reasoning. I’ve offered a list of tasks which couldn’t possibly be fitted into the time-frame. By any reasonable standards, I’ve proved that it is impossible.

            In contrast you just keep stating that it’s possible but refuse to explain how. This is the debating equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Na na na na na, I’m not listening”. And you have the hypocrisy to tell Mo Riaz (below) to “apply critical thinking.”

            Good night.

          • Clark

            OK, 60 to 90 minutes to decide, assemble the team and the materials, which should all be available in New York. Use thermite (because that fits with little sound and FEMA’s “Swiss cheese” steel samples). Five hours to place it around the bases of the supports of the bridging trusses in the underground levels, because that was a well known weak point and (I think) there weren’t very many. As you said yourself, no need to strip out everything of value and anything that might become a projectile.

          • Clark

            Node: – “Above (1.15am) I’ve spelled out why your theory is impossible. I haven’t just declared that it’s impossible,”

            Indeed you haven’t just declared it impossible. You’ve contrived every complication you could think of to make it seem impossible. I’m sure military demolitions don’t involve plans and computer simulations.

            What’s criminal about it?

          • Vronsky

            “I have a theory that a snap decision was made to demolish WTC7 after the fall of WTC1.”

            …and sure enough, nine months later,….

  • Mo Riaz

    I thought exactly the same thing, that in an era of widespread access to information, the thought of a conspiracy on this scale is unthinkable. However, when one considers the remarkable events that transpired on that day one comes to the shocking conclusion that so many mishaps could not occur simultaneously to come to such an unbelievably conclusive end. The cast of terrorists some of whom were still alive, their remarkable avionic skills after 10s of hours of flying time, the ease of taking over the airplanes, the fact that the most powerful country the world has ever known allowed 4 hijacked planes to roam unmolested in their airspace for up 90 minutes, the way the buildings fell in almost ceremonious fashion subverting the laws of physics and the fact that no skyscraper had ever nor has been demolished in such a singular way yet 3 were to fall on that day, the miraculous survival of the passport of one of the alleged perpetrators, the lack of evidence to fit the narrative on the supposed attack on the Pentagon. To convict someone of a crime the juror must accept that evidence beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The narrative the American state wants people to believe is so full of holes that every stage gives cause to doubt. I find it hard to believe that it was a conspiracy in the normal way but the story spun by the so-called “evidence” is even harder to believe.

    • Clark

      “the way the buildings fell […] subverting the laws of physics”

      No one has shown me the slightest evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers subverted the laws of physics. It’s just something someone made up and has been repeated far too much.

      From the list of memes you’ve posted, it looks like you’ve looked into 9/11 mostly by reading Truther sites. My experience looking into the collapses of the buildings is that there is much distortion on such sites. I recommend that you explore diverse sources and then apply critical thinking.

  • Bill Wagner

    On the off-chance it hasn’t been cited (or has gotten lost in the blizzard of opinions),
    http://www.ae911truth.org (architects and engineers — people with deep, specialist knowledge of the possibility/plausibility of the purported explanation) is the jumping off point of any serious evaluation of the WTC collapses claims.

  • Clark

    We always want more, he thought, we always take our past successes for granted and assume they but point the way to future triumphs. But the universe does not have our own best interests at heart, and to assume for a moment that it does, ever did or ever might is to make the most calamitous and hubristic of mistakes.

    – To hope as he was hoping, hoping against likelihood, against statistical probability, in that sense against the universe itself, was only to be expected, but it was almost certainly forlorn. The animal in him craved something that his higher brain knew was not going to happen. That was the point he was impaled upon, the front on which he suffered; that struggle of the lower brain’s almost chemical simplicities of yearning pitched against the withering realities revealed and comprehended by consciousness. Neither could give up, and neither could give way. The heat of their battle burned in his mind.

  • Nikko

    Clark says: “No one has shown me the slightest evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers subverted the laws of physics. It’s just something someone made up and has been repeated far too much.”

    Well they have not subverted the laws of physics if they were controlled demolitions. But if they were gravity led collapses then it is necessary for the Believers to explain where the energy to accelerate the collapse to near freefall speed came from, while at the same time also destroying a hitherto sound structure through the path of greatest resistance and also being sufficiently abundant to hurl massive chunks of perimeter walling 100s of feet horizontally. For some reason Clark does not want to answer this question.

    Believers like to point to the huge potential energy of the section of the building above the impact zone but do not explain how it was transformed. Let’s take WTC1 where the top 10-storey section crushed through 100 floors adding the floors below to its mass as it fell. In the Believers’ scenario no forces other than gravity could have been in play and for argument’s sake let’s also assume that there was no resistance whatsoever to the collapse.

    The 10-storey section would take 0.88 s to fall the 3.8 meters before hitting the first floor below and in that time its velocity would increase from 0 m/s to 8.6 m/s. The collision with that floor (law of conservation of momentum) would reduce its velocity to 7.8m/s and the now 11-storey equivalent block would take 0.39 s to accelerate to 11.6m/s before again colliding with a floor, the impact of which would slow it down to 10.7 m/s. And so on and so on all the way to the ground through the remaining 98 floors, which it would hit after 11.7 seconds with a speed of 50 m/s.

    As WTC 1 took in reality about this amount of time to collapse, the potential energy of the upper section of the building was completely converted to kinetic energy and nothing was left over for anything else. And as the building structure was bolted and welded together and definitely would have resisted being torn apart, the Believers need to explain where this energy came from.

    • Clark

      Thanks for doing some maths.

      My explanation is that the collapse of WTC1 took somewhat longer than 11.7 seconds. Not much gravitational potential energy was required because the floor assemblies were remarkably weak, so they didn’t slow down the collapse very much beyond the inevitable effect of momentum conservation.

      Incidentally, Node shouldn’t like your maths, because he didn’t like mine which was similar.

      • Clark

        Other possibilities are that several floor assemblies at the damaged zone had been at least partially destroyed or had collapsed, effectively increasing the first drop and hence the velocity, and/or that the upper section had more mass, so less velocity was lost particularly in the early collisions (minor differences at the start of the collapses make make larger time differences overall).

        Also, your (or anyone’s) calculations are bound to be a bit out. If the proper theoretical collapse times are a bit quicker there’s more margin, more energy available.

        • Clark

          …and John Goss should accuse you of “crank physics” and ignorance of Newton’s third law, but won’t because you believe in demolition.

      • Nikko

        If you want to be taken seriously, be specific.

        How much longer than 11.7 seconds. “Remarkably weak” is your opinion only; the floors were “light weight” but strong. Besides the word “remarkably” means nothing in physics. How weak? -how much energy was needed to break through the floors. How much energy to break through the service floors? How much energy to break up the perimeter walling and the 47 central support columns? How much energy to throw chunks of the perimeter wall sideways? How much energy to pulverize concrete and eject it in pyroclastic flow fashion?

        Be specific and don’t avoid the questions!

        • Clark

          Well this Truther site says about fifteen seconds:

          http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

          These comparisons by demolition theorist David Chandler say about 2/3 of g:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw

          This project claims the collapses reached a terminal velocity of 25m/s:

          http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=363&MMN_position=728:728

          All of those would leave a lot of spare energy. The question which obviously follows is; how much energy would it have taken to decouple the floor assemblies from the uprights? And we can’t get that answer because the debris is no longer available.

          • Clark

            “And we can’t get that answer because the debris is no longer available”

            Actually, we can get a theoretical answer from the design specifications, but not an empirical one from the debris. If the theoretical floor-decoupling energy is less than the remnant left from consideration of the collapse rates above, gravity-driven collapse is within the bounds of possibility without explosives.

          • Clark

            Pardon me, I’ll just decrease some of your energy requirements:

            “How much energy to throw chunks of the perimeter wall sideways?”

            This subtracted very little energy from the internal collapses, as the visual record seems to show that they stood after the internal collapse front had already passed, then just toppled outward, broke off under their own weight and fell, due to being deprived of the lateral support formerly supplied by the floor assemblies. But I need to read the paper Ba’al linked…

            “How much energy to pulverize concrete and eject it in pyroclastic flow fashion?”

            Again this didn’t subtract much energy from the internal collapses, since the vast majority of the dust was seen to be emitted, and thus most pulverisation presumably occurred, as the internal collapses hit bottom (maximum crushing), by which time masses of accumulated kinetic energy was available.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I don’t need to substantiate. I’m satisfied by the null hypothesis; the common-sense explanation already accepted by the vast majority – that aircraft hit the Twin Towers, damaged and set fire to sections, causing the sections above to fall on the sections below, destroying both.

            YOU say that’s impossible and advance a very elaborate theory in its place. It is up to YOU to demonstrate that impossibility and/or provide unambiguous evidence for your very demanding alternate theory. So far, neither have been done, and each time I check evidence that is proposed I find it ambiguous at best, and frequently plain wrong.

            If you want your alternate theory to gain traction, you could start by weeding out the chaff coming from within your own ranks, so that people like me don’t waste time on so many false leads.

  • Clark

    Solstice Greetings to All.

    Let’s hope that we and our biosphere make it through the next orbit without some idiot launching the nukes.

  • Bill Wagner

    Certainly so. But the link is to (IMO) the best overview of the matter in terms of physics (the laws of which are not negotiable) (well, outside of politics).

    The disparity you noted in numbers* would roughly reflect the Travistock Institute’s finding, long ago, that only 13% of the population was capable of forming an independent opinion and maintaining it in the face of disagreement.
    ____________
    * Allowing for a large proportion of the membership of the ASCE being the kind of inert passengers any big professional group finds itself with.

    In politics, quantity carries the day; in science (at least in theory), quality does. Both are involved, (IMO) making the choice instructive.

  • John Goss

    Yesterday I came off my bike and fractured my left clavicle. What puzzled the physiotherapist at the QE Hospital was how that fracture impact had caused my right clavicle to break, breaking all my ribs, pelvis, both femurs, fibs and tibs and I had crumbled to dust and fell into a bomb-hole grave of my own making.

    “I’ve never seen anything like that before today” he said scratching his head. “And you’re the third such case within the last few hours.”

    More truthing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LiVP-B2cjw

      • Clark

        John Goss links a video with the misleading title “Can 767 Aluminum Wing Cut 14’Steel?”

        The WTC box columns were indeed of 14 inches (not feet) square cross-section, but they were hollow, welded from steel plate, some of which was only a quarter of an inch thick. According to Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering at the University of California, steel used in the Twin Towers was unusually vulnerable:

        http://911-engineers.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

        …the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as “yield strength”) in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

        As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings.

      • Paul Barbara

        And somehow, all seem to be forgetting the massive amount of concrete dust created by the ‘supposed’ impact of the ‘pile driver’ theory, must have reduced the ‘top’ ‘hammer’ part progressively, so we are not talking about the full weight of the top section blasting down through the rest, but an ever-diminishing imaginary construct.

  • John Goss

    These two reports by Chris Sarns demonstrate how NIST fabricated its figures to model to demonstrate failure of column 79 in building 7 (the building’s clavicle). As well as initially stating that the beams were only eleven inches thick, when they were actually twelve inches thick, they left out 3/4″ web flange stiffeners, which they only admitted they had left out after persistent pestering by David Cole. Cole had had obtained the original Frankel drawings (the company charged with prefabricating the construction).

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/318-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-2.html

    For more background information part 1 of David’s report can be accessed from the above link. Also from this link you can download the original drawings for WTC7 including the plan of floor thirteen where NIST claims the collapse began (Floor 13 is the same as a number of other floors).

    AE911truth is sending full reports to 25,000 members of the American Institute of Architects. Please note that a couple on here believe that those who are not members of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth support the official version. Outside of NIST I have yet to find any volume of architects/engineers who agree with NIST though I don’t doubt a lot do not wish to get involved because they feel it might affect their career progression. Once these reports have been sent out I will be interested to learn how many more have been recruited to the only rational scientific conclusion that the buildings could not have fallen as they did without help from below.

  • Paul Barbara

    Just on the side, to give us all pause from the never-ending rehash of thread-bare High School suppositions supposedly trumping 2,500 dedicated, brave A&E practitioners who risk their jiobs and reputations (as well as, potentially, their lives (suspicious deaths of Barry Jennings – who said there were explosions which destroyed the staircase he was descending BEFORE either of the Twin Towers began to collapse – and Danny Jawenko, Holland’s top demolition expert – who said WTC 7 was definitely brought down by controlled demolition), here’s something to ponder:

    Photos from a 1972 Rothschild illuminati party:
    http://www.hangthebankers.com/photos-from-a-1972-rothschild-illuminati-party/

    Celebrity Cannibalism Dinner with Marina Abramović – This Is What Your Stars Do #pizzagate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTrKq4ixgRM

    At the very least, there is something very seriously wrong with these sickos; but they are not just run-of-the-mill sickos, they are rich, powerful and many are ‘Stars’ of the media scene, be it TV, music or film. Just letting their hair down? Bit like the ‘Cremation of Care’ ‘Ceremony’ at Bohemian Grove? Or Cameron sticking his todger in a dead pig’s mouth?

    But before you dismiss this stuff, watch this, where a traumatized 15-year old British girl tells how in her years-long horrific abuse, she witnessed a live child having body parts cut off it with an electric knife.

    So maybe top Democratic Party people were not just slavering at the thought of pizzas and pasta, so much so that they would write apparently coded emails to each other at a very busy and important time, when one would understandably suppose they would be working all out on the Clinton Presidential campaign?

    • John Goss

      You did not include the link to the fifteen year old in England Paul. If it is the one I saw it was terrible that people, was it her grandmother? would subject children to horrors like this. She thought it was what happened. The account I saw was believable. And a psychiatrist who has heard many similar accounts believed her, as did a policeman Very disturbing stuff.

  • Vronsky

    Clark: As Chandler said: your quarrel is not with me, it is with Newton.

    I’ve picked my side.

  • Paul Barbara

    Just on the side, to give us all pause from the never-ending rehash of thread-bare High School suppositions supposedly trumping 2,500 dedicated, brave A&E practitioners who risk their jiobs and reputations (as well as, potentially, their lives (suspicious deaths of Barry Jennings – who said there were explosions which destroyed the staircase he was descending BEFORE either of the Twin Towers began to collapse – and Danny Jawenko, Holland’s top demolition expert – who said WTC 7 was definitely brought down by controlled demolition), here’s something to ponder:

    Photos from a 1972 Rothschild illuminati party:
    http://www.hangthebankers.com/photos-from-a-1972-rothschild-illuminati-party/

    Celebrity Cannibalism Dinner with Marina Abramović – This Is What Your Stars Do #pizzagate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTrKq4ixgRM

    At the very least, there is something very seriously wrong with these sickos; but they are not just run-of-the-mill sickos, they are rich, powerful and many are ‘Stars’ of the media scene, be it TV, music or film. Just letting their hair down? Bit like the ‘Cremation of Care’ ‘Ceremony’ at Bohemian Grove? Or Cameron sticking his todger in a dead pig’s mouth?

    But before you dismiss this stuff, watch this, where a traumatized 15-year old British girl tells how in her years-long horrific abuse, she witnessed a live child having body parts cut off it with an electric knife:
    ’15 Years Old Girl Survive Pizzagate Satanic Rituals Abuse’:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLgNm_ay4Sk

    So maybe top Democratic Party people were not just slavering at the thought of pizzas and pasta, so much so that they would write apparently coded emails to each other at a very busy and important time, when one would understandably suppose they would be working all out on the Clinton Presidential campaign?

    (Reposted as I forgot a vital link previously).

    • John Goss

      Thanks for that Paul and thank God for real engineers. Gage easily dismantles the NIST lies but it is doubtful it will convince detractors who consider anything outside the NIST account to be false. Building 7 is easy. It was a controlled demolition.

      So were the twin towers but they are harder to model. Their strength of course was vertical (as it had to be). They were also designed to withstand strong winds and aircraft crashes. All skyscrapers move in strong winds. But structural steel is so strong that it can waltz and bow a tremendous amount without fracturing as in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Disaster of 1940. This time accompanied to Strauss’ “Blue Danube.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkXl8JJBH7E

      The vertical strength of buildings is always overdesigned to take much more load than it would ever experience. The pancaking idea is absolute nonsense to an engineer. Take a look at this tower made out of beer crates.

      http://entertainment.ie/trending/news/Watch-Stacking-beer-crates-into-towers-and-climbing-them-is-a-thing-now/368680.htm

      It will give you some idea of the downward strength of crate on crate. And yet again gain Newton’s immutable third law can be seen. My estimate is that the crates at about 18 stacked together would be a similar height to the twin towers (give or take). What you should imagine is instead of somebody climbing on them that a person is hoisted above the tower who then drops a crate a crate’s height above the tower. If it landed square it would not push the other crates into the ground. If it landed awkwardly and the tower collapsed it would collapse lopsidedly.

      Of course there is a big difference between beer crates and a solid structure, especially a steel structure, especially a steel structure which is bolted and riveted together, especially a steel structure which is anchored soundly at the base, with even stronger girders and wider support towards the base. I put the beer-crate tower up as another example of a law some have difficulty getting their noddles round.

      Happy Christmas if you celebrate Christmas. Seasonal greetings to others. Peace on earth. 

  • Thomas Potter

    https://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg

    Here are ways to cover up Dr. Wood’s research:

    1.) Create and promote unscientific alternate forms of destruction.

    2.) Promote her research and then find fault with it.

    3.) Make personal attacks against her character.

    4.) Marginalize her research and call it “voodoo science”.

    5.) Promote her research but misquote her and run it into the ditch.

    6.) Ignore her research and evidence then call it a “theory”.

    7.) Say that you have read her book and find fault with it when you never did read her book.

    8.) Create other faux groups like the “Sandy Hook Hoaxers” to keep people from asking the right questions and looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This also creates distrust in our government and people that ask questions. If our government was responsible for 9/11, our government is the only way to reverse the damage it has caused. This is why Dr. Wood filed her Federal Qui-Tam lawsuit. Too bad the Truthers didn’t support it. The phrase, “use it or or lose it” comes to mind. If the system is broken, then fix it. Otherwise, you are condoning the broken state that it’s in. (The “we are change” characters, the “loose change” characters, and Richard Gage & Co. going to the AIA office with ambush video interview attempts are good examples.) Ambush journalism does not solve problems; it covers them up.

    If the “thousands of engineers” that Mr. Gage brags about had stood behind Dr. Wood’s Federal Qui-Tam lawsuit, it would have been a lot harder for them to dismiss it… especially if they stood in and outside of the courtroom during the 8-minute “hearing” by the Court of Appeals. After all, the written decision from that hearing did not refute Dr. Wood’s collection of evidence and her conclusions from that evidence. The court actually acknowledge the law applied to Dr. Wood’s case but admitted they were ignoring the law to dismiss the case! Why were the Truthers satisfied with that outcome? Anarchy is not the answer and fixes nothing.

    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml

    https://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/Jefffolkman/Still_arguing_K640.jpg

    Popular theories about what destroyed the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 are:

    1 Fires from jet fuel and office materials weakened steel in the upper floors and the buildings collapsed

    2 Conventional controlled demolition blew out supports at the base and the buildings collapsed

    3 Thermite cut steel columns on virtually every floor and the buildings collapsed

    4 Conventional explosives blew the buildings up

    5 Mini-nukes blew the buildings up

    Theories 1, 2 and 3 rely on gravity to bring the buildings down while the last two blow them up. Popular theories, yes, and dead wrong. Five facts scientifically documented in Ph.D. engineer Judy Wood’s comprehensive textbook (Where Did The Towers Go?) prove the popular theories false beyond any doubt whatsoever. Yes, I know it’s amazing. Who’d a thunk it’d be this easy?

    THE FACTS:

    DEBRIS: What debris? There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no “pile” or “stack.” Rubble totaled less than a story. It was a football field as a survivor who emerged from Stairwell B, North Tower, exclaimed. No computers, toilets, and only one small piece from one Steelcase file cabinet were found. Some steel and mostly dust remained. Lack of debris on the ground from quarter-mile-high twin towers whispers “no collapse.” See Chapter 9.

    BATHTUB: A bathtub or slurry wall surrounded 70 feet of WTC subbasements to prevent the Hudson River from flooding the WTC and downtown. If each 500,000-ton tower had slammed into the bathtub in 10 seconds or less, the protective wall would collapse. Did not happen. Upshot? Collapses did not happen. See Chapter 5.

    SEISMIC IMPACT: “Had the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the ‘collapse,’” writes Dr. Wood. Seismic instruments registered disturbances far too short in duration and far too small to record tower collapses. This was true of both the twin towers and 47-story WTC7. Again, no evidence of collapses. See Chapter 6.

    SOUND: There were no loud explosions, as established by videos, witnesses, and the official report of NIST. Nor were there loud screeches and screams from massive metal falling, colliding, scraping and collapsing on metal. See Chapter 6.

    DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air. Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, “I was standing there for a couple of seconds thinking where the f**k is the tower? I simply couldn’t comprehend it.” The dust rollout was so enormous and thick it blocked out sunlight and left an inch or more of dust covering downtown. Much of it wafted into the upper atmosphere. The volume was incredible. Particles from dust samples were smaller than red blood cells and about the size of DNA. As for toxicity, researchers said the dust “recorded the highest levels we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China.” See Chapters 8, 9, 14-16.

    ♥The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11♥

    https://redice.tv/news/the-miracle-of-directed-energy-technology-on-9-11

    • John Goss

      “If the “thousands of engineers” that Mr. Gage brags about had stood behind Dr. Wood’s Federal Qui-Tam lawsuit, it would have been a lot harder for them to dismiss it”.

      Probably true. But no blueprints at that time were available. And these are architects and engineers. It is a long time since I looked at her work. Impressive as it was, and I discount nothing, I cannot recall what her argument was for the furnaces that burnt underground for months after. These would fit a nuclear event.

    • Node

      Like John, I rule nothing in and nothing out. I watched Judy Woods being interviewed by Richard Hall back when he had his own TV program on Showcase TV :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLSNYSiwXk4
      I didn’t know what to make of her theory then and I still don’t. It certainly accounts for some aspects of the collapses, but there are anomalies. John asks about molten metal in the rubble. Just to mention a couple of others: :

      You say “there were no loud explosions”. How do you account for the testimonies of those who say there were?

      Your link explains how 2 religious artifacts came to be fused with steel : “A process used in directed energy technology can cause a dissociation and alteration of the molecular structure of metal, to fuse with combustible objects and appear as if the materials melted together, but with no discernable evidence of heat or combustion.” If the explanation is correct, surely we should be aware of innumerable other objects fused with steel …. telephones, other paper articles, body parts, etc? Can you point to other examples?

      Richard Gage in the video linked above lists 10 examples of how WTC7’s collapse resembled explosive demolition. It would be useful if you would go through the same list and say how Dr Judy Woods’ theory accounts for these observed phenomena. Here’s the link again:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9o-CXBEgI&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH1sjoLYRFihJdxG6OsEZbKF

    • Node

      @Thomas Potter
      I see you have attracted quite a following on the internet.:

      Mr. Thomas Potter – Cyberbully Task Force
      Known Aliases: Amanda Reckonwith, Emmanuel Goldstein
      Those who find themselves hounded or harassed by Mr. Thomas Potter should contact:
      Olmsted Falls Police Department
      26100 Bagley Road Olmsted Falls, Ohio 44138
      Phone:(440) 235-3145 (Non Emergency Number)
      [email protected]
      (They are aware of his antics, and more than willing to assist)

      I haven’t read through these accusations, there are a lot of them. They say you are a malicious crank. The trouble they have taken to say so may mean the opposite.To save time, would you care to address the accusations made here:
      http://mrthomaspotter.com/index.html

1 99 100 101 102 103 134

Comments are closed.