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

1 100 101 102 103 104 134
  • Paul Barbara

    I was looking through activity since my last post before I got to ‘Thomas Potter’. I have no truck with the Woods twaddle, and didn’t bother to read ‘Potter’s’ comment. But I immediately thought, ah hah, the ‘Normal Suspects’ are getting jaded, and some ‘new blood’ has sprung to their assistance, to muddy the waters.
    Then I read Node’s post. I’ll check out the allegations, just for the crac.
    I further noticed none of the ‘Normal Suspects’ have touched my PizzaGate post.

  • John Goss

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

    Node, I would not wish to start a witch hunt but there clearly were explosions and when the explosions testimony is given in the Richard Gage video you posted you can hear a very loud one, and I don’t mean a bottle going off. So perhaps Thomas might like to watch that so I am reposting that very important and up-to-date link.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9o-CXBEgI&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH1sjoLYRFihJdxG6OsEZbKF

    So important. As are the planes that were still flying after they allegedly crashed into WTC2 and the Shanksville crater.

    How can a plane (Flight 175) still be flying 20 minutes after it allegedly crashed into the South Tower (WTC2)?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-A…

    And flight United 93 was 500 miles away when it allegedly crashed creating the crater at Shanksville. The authorities do not answer questions.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html

    One day, thanks to β€˜truthers’ the truth might emerge.

    • Paul Barbara

      John, your link to 175 doesn’t come up: here is the one you want: ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

      Incidentally, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is having a Fundraiser to pay for the hire of a jet aircraft to sample high-altitude for toxic ‘Chemtrail’ spraying: PILOTS FOR TRUTH – ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH FUNDRAISER:
      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/arcc-project.html

      As for the planes still flying some people, including myself, haven’t believed for a long time that the alleged highjacked Boeing’s were involved in any of the attacks. Indeed, one airline crew member even identified one of the planes still flying as a passenger aircraft long after 9/11, by some of it’s serial numbers (he was some kind of aircraft buff, who collects that sort of data). I couldn’t hope to find the links now, unfortunately.

      • John Goss

        Thanks for spotting that Paul. I copied it from my Facebook page and it clearly foreshortened the link.

        Yes, there were no planes went into the twin towers. I keep trying to inform people that aluminium does not cut through steel of that thickness. There is a video on the previous page of a telegraph pole ripping off the tip of a wing. The I-beams were welded in such compactly constructed columns it would have shredded any plane like a chip-making machine. The engines and heavier parts might have made a dint in some beams before falling on the outside of the skyscrapers.

        Well, actually, in a virtual world it is not impossible to achieve this effect of a plane going through a steel structure, or even a soft-tissue object or being.

        http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Hole_in_the_wall

          • John Goss

            Richard Hall has done some excellent work on the Maddy murder. He is an honest researcher prepared to change his mind if a more convincing theory comes along. At least he understands that aluminium never made the gaping holes in the world trade centre twin towers. Whether his theory of a cruise missile is right nobody knows for certain. What we do know for certain is that no Boeings flew into the buildings.

  • Thomas Potter

    Node: Dr. Wood does not present a “theory”. Dr. Wood presents overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence. Here is more evidence of cold fusion for those who like to be spoon fed:

    https://www.youtube.com/v/LWWwsuoE9Z4

    Mr. Voorsanger misspoke by attributing known words to explain an unknown such as fire, heat, and molten which all imply high heat. The evidence leads to the conclusion that there was no high heat. The process was cold molecular disassociation using energy that was directed in a highly specific way (only buildings with a WTC prefix) to instruct matter to release its bonds. (dustification)

    Some individuals that post here seem to be victims of the β€œdumbing down” of our culture and why it’s so easy for β€œthe crew” to pull off a psyop of this magnitude. A hallmark characteristic of the dumbed down is a confusion between β€œevidence” and β€œtheory.”

    Another characteristic of the dumbed down is the belief they can evaluate a book they have never read. They also fail to question why they have been convinced by someone else not to read it. Instead, they just memorize the list of talking points they were given and strongly urged not to think independently. So of course they don’t realize just how easy it is to control and entire population by discouraging independent thought. When belief is preferred over fact, anything can be covered up. And all that is needed is a community organizer to issue people their opinions and a conditioned response. Another name for this is brainwashing. How else can someone be so convinced that β€œthe answer is 27” when they don’t even know what the question is?

    Node: False Internet accusations about my character are not worth the energy to defend. The secret of change is to focus all your energy not on fighting the old, but on building the new. I know what I have control over and I cannot control what others believe. I can only control the way I react. And yes, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” If Dr.Wood is wrong, why is so much energy being used to discredit her and those who have read her book and support her work? Those who are interested in the truth have read her book a I did over 5Β½ years ago. And likewise, those who are not interested in the truth will never read her book. πŸ˜‰ β™₯

    • John Goss

      I think this is the link Thomas. Yours asks me to download it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWwsuoE9Z4

      Dr Judy Wood has certainly convinced you. I was impressed by her video, have not read her book, but satellite images showed extremely hot areas where the three skyscrapers had previously stood many weeks after 911. Does Dr Wood have any explanation for that phenomenom?

      • Paul Barbara

        John, didn’t you check out Node’s comment?
        ‘Node
        December 23, 2016 at 18:13
        @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 ?

        This ‘Potter’ does not seem to be someone one should bother to engage with.

  • Thomas Potter

    “When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo (Latin for “a lone friend”) πŸ˜‰ β™₯

    Those who want to cover up the evidence of what happen often falsely claim that Dr. Wood is talking about a specific weapon and a specific location of it (e.g. laser beam from outer space, or “spacebeams”). This disinformation campaign was initiated by Steven Jones on 11/11/2006 in a presentation he gave in California (available in the internet archives), telling his audience that “Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) says it’s a laser or maser from space” while showing how difficult it is to hold his hand like a beam from space. Not only does Dr. Wood NOT SAY THAT, she actually RULES THAT OUT. The mechanism of destruction of a laser beam would be from heat and produce a bright and blinding light. But we know the buildings were not cooked to death. The term Directed Energy is used because energy is directed to do something different then it normally does and it is directed to do this within a certain geographic zone. [As a mental example, think of directing the binding energy of matter to repel instead of attract. A solid object would turn to atomic-sized dust. Direct this to happen within the WTC complex and not across the street.]

    At the end of Chapter 20 in Dr. Wood’s book, she explains why playing “name the weapon” game is counterproductive. Name dropping trendy terms is not synonymous with understanding. The easiest example is HAARP. The full capabilities are classified. But people often name-drop the trendy term to APPEAR to know something. A tongue-in-cheek definition of HAARP stands for High Amplitude Advancement of Real Propaganda. They are just substituting “HAARP” for “Bin Laden.”

    In Dr. Wood’s book, the closest she comes to “naming a weapon” is merely describing what it creates: magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions (page 365). But as soon as someone starts talking about a name, people will stop looking at the evidence which is another form of a cover up.

    Early on, Dr. Steven Jones created a website he called “The Journal of Nine Eleven Studies” or J.O.N.E.S. It is referred to as a “peer-reviewed journal” but the only peer-reviewing was to screen out true scientific work and post what he wanted his followers to believe. For the first two years, it was primarily used to promote disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work. For example, Jones recruited a patent attorney for the oil and gas industry (James Gourley) http://www.cclaw.com/our-people/attorneys/james-gourley.html to write hit pieces on Dr. Wood, refuting “ray beams from outer space.” This convinced his readers that “Judy Woods” must be talking about “ray beams from outer space” and that “such nonsense has been refuted.” Refuting false propaganda about Dr. Wood’s work does not refute Dr. Wood’s work — yet it creates the belief in the average person that Dr. Wood’s work has been refuted.

    Steven Jones and Greg Jenkins also claimed that it would take more than five times the world’s energy to destroy the WTC towers. Does that mean their thermite came from off planet or “outer space”? LOL Steven Jones used to ridicule Dr. Wood during his talks saying that “Judy Woods (Dr. Wood) needs to make calculations to see if it is even possible to turn the buildings to dust”. But any reputable scientist knows that calculations are not a part of observing empirical evidence. What are the calculations for, to prove the buildings are still there or if the buildings are gone? Why not just look? No assumptions needed with empirical evidence.

    The bottom line is that no one has refuted anything in Dr. Wood’s book nor can they. They only refute their own false propaganda about her book, not her book. Other detractors claim that “she hasn’t identified the weapon that was used so she’s got nothing.” To the contrary. The evidence is PROOF that there exists a technology that can do what was done. It happened. That is, the fact that the buildings mostly turned to dust in mid-air shows that there exists a weapon that can turn buildings into dust in mid-air. It happened.

    I was interested in the truth, so I took the time to read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? over 5Β½ years ago. Those who are not interested in the truth will not read Dr. Wood’s collection of overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence that leads to only one conclusion. Merry Christmas Sheeple

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Thomas Potter December 25, 2016 at 14:37
      Why haven’t you responded to Node’s challenge?

      • Thomas Potter

        What does nodes “challenge” have to do with the evidence Dr. Wood presents? How sad no one here is interested in the truth. πŸ™

      • John Goss

        Yes Paul, I saw Nodes comment. However everybody should have a chance to express his or her view if it is politely expressed. I do not condemn Judy Wood who is an academic, nor those who support her viewpoint. I do not believe in vilifying people, especially if they have something to add.

        We all have different views about what happened when so many US citizens going about their daily work were wantonly murdered. Judy Wood, like me and you, does not believe the official version. Thomas Potter does seem obsessional about the ‘truth’ of Judy Wood’s theory, based on a book he read nearly six years ago, but that is not much different from one or two on this thread’s obsession with the official view. There have been many books written since Judy Wood wrote hers, and many before. Let’s keep an open mind.

        I would still like to know how Judy Wood explains away the great sources of subterranean heat were seen on satellite images and how that fits with her theory. But Thomas Potter has refused to address this three times.

        • John Goss

          With regards to addressing the satellite thermal heat-source images of ground zero, “three times” that is not right. I have now asked the question three times. Thomas has not responded twice.

          The answer could be that she does not address it. That would be the correct thing to do if you had no idea of what caused the heat sources.

        • Thomas Potter

          Mr. Goss,

          1.) I do not spoon feed people information for the entertainment.

          2.) There was no high heat. (Read Dr. Wood’s book and stop nitpicking people who have.)

          3.) Yes, there have been many books written about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. HOWEVER, DR. WOOD IS THE ONLY PERSON TO HAVE WRITTEN THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC FORENSIC STUDY OF THE DESTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. AND DR. WOOD IS THE ONLY PERSON TO TAKE THIS EVIDENCE TO COURT. THE COURT ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE IGNORING THE LAW WHEN THEY DISMISSED THE CASE.

          Roger Gloux and James Fetzer Christmas Sparring Session πŸ˜‰ β™₯
          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/mcilvaine-controlled-demolition/#comment-44972

          How do you keep people from looking at the evidence?

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

          2.) Promote Dr. Wood’s research and then find fault with it.

          3.) Make personal attacks against Dr. Wood’s character.

          4.) Marginalize Dr. Wood’s research and call it “voodoo science”.

          5.) Promote Dr. Wood’s research but misquote her and run it into the ditch.

          6.) Ignore Dr. Wood’s research and evidence then call it a “theory”.

          7.) Say that you have read Dr. Wood’s 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, β€œuse 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 β€œwe are change” characters, the β€œloose 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 β€œthousands 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 β€œhearing” 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

          • John Goss

            “1.) I do not spoon feed people information for the entertainment.

            2.) There was no high heat. (Read Dr. Wood’s book and stop nitpicking people who have.)”

            Nearly every comment of yours, Mr Potter, demands that people, probably busy people, read Judy Wood’s book as though it is the only book about 9/11. As I mentioned in a former comment it is clear it has convinced you. But that does not make it right. Also, if you are acting as a salesman on her behalf, might I suggest that you try another approach. Your God-Almighty-this-is-the-only-truth is reminiscent of religious fanatics who come knocking on doors selling us the only way to heaven. As such you are doing Dr Wood a disservice. And perhaps it is you who should read another book to get a less holier-than-thou attitude towards people who are striving to get at the truth of what happened to the twin towers and building 7. Think about it.

            If there was no high heat this makes all these testimonies wrong. And it is not nitpicking. It is trying to evaluate or research unknowns.

            http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

    • Clark

      Thomas Potter, December 25, 14:37, fourth paragraph:

      “…magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions”

      Would that be strong nuclear, weak nuclear, or a bit of both? Thorough, seeing as there are only four known forces.

      I’m retreating to the Pastafarian doctrine which is equally untestable; the FSM (pesto be upon Him) did it with his Noodly Appendage.

  • John Goss

    I cannot discount Judy Wood’s theory because it does appear that there was atomization of steel girders. This compilation of the fall of a remnant of the inner core, which for a while appeared to abide by Newtonian physics, is convincing. Solid beams start to fall but appear to disintegrate before being consummed by the great dust cloud from below.

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

      • John Goss

        But Judy Wood is not the only one with a theory for the atomization. One of the theories discounted by Thomas Potter was a subterranean nuclear bomb. Dimitri Khalezov has another theory. And his theory accounts for the super hotspots where the towers had stood months after the event.

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

        I rule nothing out except nonsense ideas like the pancake theory and anything else that does not follow the known laws of physics and engineering.

    • Thomas Potter

      Mr. Goss,
      There are 24 hours in a day, no more and no less. My time is just as important as yours. I created the time to read THE ONLY FORENSIC SCIENTIFIC STUDY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN THAT DEALS WITH THE EVENTS OF 9/11 AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX OVER 5Β½ YEARS AGO. WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING FOR 5Β½ YEARS BESIDES CHASING YOUR COLLECTIVE TAILS?. Anyone who has not read the overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence (NOT THEORY) is NOT interested in the truth. It’s that simple. Your degrading words are being used to compensate your lack of knowledge. How sad οΌˆοΈΆοΈΏοΈΆοΌ‰

      evΒ·iΒ·dence
      ˈevΙ™dΙ™ns/Submit
      noun
      1.
      the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
      β€œthe study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”
      synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
      β€œthey found evidence of his plotting”
      verb
      1.
      be or show evidence of.
      β€œthat it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings”
      synonyms: indicate, show, reveal, display, exhibit, manifest;

      and…..

      theΒ·oΒ·ry
      ˈTHΔ“Ι™rΔ“/Submit
      noun
      a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
      β€œDarwin’s theory of evolution”
      synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
      a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
      β€œa theory of education”
      an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
      β€œmy theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged”

      • John Goss

        One thing I can tell you Mr Potter is that people who comment here are not stupid ‘sheeple’. Now you’ve left your fundamentalist message to read Judy Wood’s book several times there is not one of them, including those I disagree with, who will not understand it since it is all you ever seem to say. When you have something new to add other commenters may be interested to read it.

    • Clark

      John Goss, December 26, 00:55; the first clip on the video you linked:

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

      is a grainy, slowed-down video of WTC1’s core falling – you can see the vid jerking from one frame to the next. Other videos are not really of any more help. Instead of watching just the highest straggly bit, try taking in the whole context. Note that at 0:14 to 0:16 as the initial dust falls away, a core upright topples to the right, trailing dust. From 0:18 to about 0:21, a core upright on the left topples away to the left. Until about 0:26, various uprights sway. At 0:29, keep your eye on the lower, greater section of core because at 0:30 you will see it start to fall vertically. Unsurprisingly, the highest straggler starts falling with it. The upright falls nearly vertically, leaving a dust trail hanging in the air, soon blown away to the left.

      There’s really no need to see any mystery here. Various core uprights topple, one falls almost vertically, two leave dust trails. Occam’s razor – no “atomisation” necessary, and it wouldn’t be consistent with the collapses of the other uprights.

  • Node

    @ Thomas Potter

    Sorry to take so long to get back to you.

    You’ll have noticed that the regulars on this thread have an established procedure for discussing 9/11. Someone posts some material and we check it, question it, ask for supporting evidence, post contradictory evidence, etc. If we were the types to accept assertions without questioning them, we wouldn’t be on this thread in the first place. You’ve joined us on this thread. Please do us the courtesy of doing it our way.

    As evidence in favour of Dr Woods’ research, you supplied a link titled “The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11.” I showed you respect by reading the website, but found what seems a glaring inconsistency – the process which fused a bible with steel ought to have done the same to innumerable other objects in the towers. Are you aware of any other such objects or can you explain their absence?

    • Clark

      “Someone posts some material and we check it, question it, ask for supporting evidence, post contradictory evidence, etc.”

      No, that’s what me and Kempe do. You, Node, only ever do that to anything that contradicts your pet theory. Paul Barbara never does it at all, and John Goss wouldn’t be capable if he tried.

      This is hilarious.

        • Clark

          Rest assured that I’ll be watching WTC7 developments. No hurry, though. Have there been any more letters to EuroPhysics News?

          • Clark

            I just checked. The response letters were published in Volume 47 number 5-6, which covers September to December, so presumably the next edition won’t be published until January.

        • John Goss

          Don’t give up heart Paul. You are not likely to get a response to Gage’s presentation unless someone writes a loony challenge to it because neither of the guardians of the blog are capable of understanding it. It is after all engineering. πŸ˜€

          No engineer is likely to put his or her neck on the line without funding from NIST. Anyone who accepts funding from NIST has to accept the official view. Although I do not agree with his findings, I respect his integrity when asked to join the original investigation team.

          “Mr. Astaneh-Asl was initially asked to participate, but he says he was troubled that team members were all required to sign a nondisclosure form promising to keep certain details of the investigation, including the buildings’ architectural plans, to themselves. Mr. Astaneh-Asl’s says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom, and so he resigned from the team before its investigation got under way.”

          The rest are prostitutes. None of the three buildings could have been brought down from above. It is not how demolition works.

          https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-645757

          • Clark

            You would have no right to speak on behalf of other engineers even if you showed some understanding of physical principles, which you never have. You have never even discussed at the rudimentary level taking place between myself and Nikko, despite openings I have provided. Please stop pretending to have specialist knowledge; it is embarrassing to witness.

            NIST does not control all engineers worldwide, nor students, amateurs, the retired nor the unemployed. You claim to have been an engineer; how often was your work or professional opinion dictated to you by NIST? I suspect never.

      • Nikko

        No you do not Clark – your “theory” of the towers brought down by falling floors is unsubstantiated nonsense. If you did the calculations you would realize how tiny and inconsequential the amount of energy not used up in accelerating downwards at near free fall actually is. (The equivalent of 4 floors (865 tonnes) starting to fall at 75% freefall would leave just 4kWh at the first impact rising to 25kWh at the tenth impact. Per square meter of floor area the 10th impact produces 0.007 kWh/m2.) Do the calcs yourself but there is absolutely no way these piddling amount of energy could have torn the outer structures of the building apart and pulverize the concrete

        • Clark

          At a glance your figures look unrealistically low (workings?), but in any case they don’t need to account for “[tearing] the outer structures of the building apart and [pulverising] the concrete”, because the perimeter’s own potential energy accounts for most of the first and the dissipation of kinetic energy as the collapse hit bottom accounts for the second – note from the videos that the perimeter fell outwards after the collapse wave had passed, and nearly all dust production occurred at and after termination of collapse.

          • Clark

            “…the dissipation of kinetic energy as the collapse hit bottom accounts for the second”

            ie. the greater part of the energy of collapse that you correctly pointed out was NOT expended either in inelastic collisions or in mechanically decoupling the floor assemblies from the uprights.

          • Nikko

            Clark, do your own calculations. Everything you need to check my numbers is in my post.
            You say that the perimeter’s own potential energy accounts for (most) of the tearing of the perimeter structures. Complete bollocks. If you knew anything about physics you would know that potential energy is just that – potential – and cannot do any work without being transformed. How it was transformed you do not say, because you either do not know or do not want to say. Your fanciful descriptions of what you think has happened are at odds with the evidence and against the known laws of physics.

          • Clark

            Some excuse for not publishing your workings.

            Potential energy becomes kinetic energy as matter falls. Consider an extending steel rule, the type that builders typically use. Hold the case so that you can extend the rule vertically upwards. The rule has slight curvature to its cross-section to impart rigidity. Angling its convex side slightly away from the vertical enables a metre or more of rule to be held aloft.

            Now slowly angle the rule further from the vertical. At a few degrees the rule will make a sharp snap! sound as the curvature reverses, and the rule will flop over at that point. That took energy, and it came from the potential energy you imparted as you extended the rule upwards. The perimeter columns fell and broke off in a similar manner but on a much larger scale.

            Remember, the collisions between floor assemblies are at least partly inelastic and therefore inevitably expend kinetic energy. Much of that energy becomes available to deform the structure. I’m pretty sure your figures are lower than that energy release.

            I’m bored of bland statements that my descriptions are inconsistent with physics. Either post the relevant inequality or shut up.

          • Clark

            Why the hell are you working in kilowatt hours? Are you an electricity company? Still, it implies a moderately high power when expended in a fraction of a second.

          • Clark

            25 kilowatt hour equals 90 megajoule. With floor assemblies decoupling from the uprights at, say, four per second that’s 360 megawatt, which seems reasonably potent, but I still suspect that your numbers are too low.

          • Nikko

            No need to β€œpublish” my workings as I have not done anything original but simply applied the classic equations of motion. I have given you all you need to replicate. If you do not know how to do the calcs, let me know and I will explain. The idea that the collapse of the towers was triggered by a falling floor (carrying the weight of 3 other floors) came from you.

            Your example of the extending ruler is nothing like the towers, which were akin to a square tube. It also abjectly fails to demonstrate the observed effect of sections of the outer walling hurled laterally 100s of feet. Again and again you failed to explain where the energy to tear the buildings apart came from.

            You say you are pretty sure that my calculated figures are lower than in reality. In this case β€œpretty sure” is meaningless – either you are sure and have figures of your own or you do not know. The figures I quoted are the maximum theoretical values.

            You may well be bored being told that your statements are inconsistent with the laws of physics, but the onus of proof is on you. Your theories based on wishful thinking are not a proof we can accept. You promised some maths or science a while ago but so far nothing. In the meanwhile I have provided some figures showing how little energy is available for the destruction. It is up to you to demonstrate how that was sufficient to tear the towers apart.

          • Nikko

            If you tried to replicate my results, you may have noticed that at the tenth impact point 25kWh of energy becomes available if the tower collapse time had been 21 seconds. This is not the 75% of the freefall speed I mentioned; more like 40%.

            Let’s be more realistic and take the collapse time as 15s. The available energy at the first, second and tenth impact points becomes 0.02kWh, 0.1kWh and 4.0 kWh respectively or, if you prefer, 0.1, 0.4 and 14.4 MJ. Much smaller numbers than we had before.

            You commented: β€œ25 kilowatt hour equals 90 megajoule. With floor assemblies decoupling from the uprights at, say, four per second that’s 360 megawatt, which seems reasonably potent, but I still suspect that your numbers are too low.”

            Four floors per second implies that WTC 1 would have taken 25 seconds to fall. In reality more like 15s. In freefall it would be 8.4s, with pancaking (conservation of momentum) 11.7s. So the resistance of the structure supporting the floors added 3.3s; 0.01s per floor at the beginning, 0.05s at the end and averaging 0.04s. At the 1st, 2nd and 10th impact points the corresponding release of power would be 9, 35 and 650 MW resp. – more than you have estimated. As you say, seems potent but only until you consider the energies in terms of TNT. The available energy at the 1st, 2nd and 10th impact is equivalent to 0.02 kg, 0.09kg and 3.4 kg resp.

            Are you seriously suggesting that 20 grams of TNT equivalent was responsible for the first explosion like ejection of gases and debris?

          • Clark

            Nikko: – “In reality more like 15s. In freefall it would be 8.4s, with pancaking (conservation of momentum) 11.7s. So the resistance of the structure supporting the floors added 3.3s”

            It looks like you have discounted the energy liberated through conservation of momentum. That energy will have contributed to decoupling the floor assemblies from the uprights.

            Please work in joule, and please link to support the conversion factor to mass of TNT. I also think you should use more than four floor assemblies’ mass; if I suggested that I didn’t mean to. I can make a stab at the energy calculations, but I may never get around to it due to personal reasons.

          • Nikko

            “It looks like you have discounted the energy liberated through conservation of momentum. That energy will have contributed to decoupling the floor assemblies from the uprights.”

            what are you talking about? What difference would it make to the 20 grams?

            TNT data here
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

          • Clark

            From your link:

            The “ton of TNT” is a unit of energy defined by that convention to be 4.184 gigajoules,[1] which is the approximate energy released in the detonation of a metric ton (1,000 kilograms or one megagram) of TNT.

            Giga is a billion ie. 10^9

            (90×10^6) / (4.184×10^9) = 0.021697 tonne of TNT
            =~21.7 kg.

            I think you got a power of three wrong. Adding in the dissipation from conservation of momentum would about double that.

          • Clark

            I’m no expert with explosives but I think we’d easily decouple a floor from its uprights with over forty kilo of TNT.

          • Clark

            And your figures were higher than mine, and somehow we ended up using four floor assemblies’ mass instead of ten plus the hat truss, ancillary equipment and contents…

            Bazant was right, wasn’t he? If the top got moving, the structure beneath didn’t really have much resistance to offer.

            I thought it might be dubious that I converted to power – it becomes a circular argument, in that the faster it falls the higher the power. But you went back to energy, so as long as you’re happy with your figures, this should be roughly valid.

          • Nikko

            No I did not get the TNT equivalent wrong!! I am using the same conversion as you.

            90MJ is equivalent to 21.7 kg as you say and the figures I have quoted are exactly in line with this. The reality is that the energy build up following each impact starts very slowly and 90 MJ would not be available until the 16th or 17th impact..

            Just to please you I’ll assume that the mass of 10 floors started the collapse. for the st, 2nd, 3rd and 10th impact the available energy was: 0.2, 0.9, 2.4 and 36 MJ.

            The equivalent TNT was 0.04, 0.22, 0.58 and 8.6 kg

            It hardly makes a difference to the original numbers. The available energy to start the destruction was just 40 grams. You need to explain how these piddling amounts of energy could have been responsible for severing all floor joints, the pyroclastic explosions, the destruction of the outer structures and the lateral ejection of debris.

            Be honest and tackle these points scientifically!

          • Nikko

            corrections:
            For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 10th impact the available energy was: 0.2, 0.9, 2.4 and 36 MJ.

            The equivalent TNT was 0.04, 0.22, 0.58 and 8.6 kg

            It hardly makes a difference to the original numbers. The available energy to start the destruction was just 40 grams of TNT equivalent

          • Clark

            Sorry I used the wrong figures.

            Though I maintain that energy for pulverisation and for most of the destruction of the perimeter does not need to be sourced from the difference between the actual collapse rate and collapse at g, I agree that the figures you give for TNT equivalent seem far too low to even decouple the floor assemblies from the uprights, at least at the beginning of the collapse.

            I’m going to have to do the energy calculations myself, for my own satisfaction. I just dropped in on this thread to check this specific conversation – I’m not staying on-line tonight to even read anyone else’s stuff, which is generally all nonsense. Thanks for presenting a quantitative argument. Intuitively, the figures you present seem absurdly low, and if correct would suggest that vΓ©rinage demolition could not be possible. Also, it cannot be so simple or the world’s science community would surely have complained, so I suggest you check your work. I’ll try to come up with my own figures over the next few days. Please be patient, and please consider doing some weeding of others’ nonsense arguments.

          • Nikko

            Looking forward to comparing your results with mine. It is not a big job – took me about 10-15 mins initially, then about the same later to tidy it up and making it β€œuniversal” to try different scenarios.

            These are the parameters are used (WTC 1)

            Height = 415m, no of floors = 110, height between floors = 3.8m, floor area =63*63m, density concrete = 2,400kg/m3, total mass of 1 floor slab = 1,500kg

            The initial collapse is triggered by the mass of 10 floor slabs. The slowing down effect due to conservation of momentum as floors are added to the falling mass taken into account but no other resistance considered.Importantly, I have assumed a total collapse time of 15s.

            I have overestimated the mass of the floor slabs and also think the collapse time was < 15s but at this stage it does not matter much. If you disagree with something I can easily change.

          • Clark

            I think you made too many assumptions. OK, you can choose a collapse time of 15 seconds for the sake of argument, but it does not follow that energy dissipation had to increase regularly floor-by-floor. We could work from measurements of the drop of the roof-line but that would still tell us little about the details of collapse within the building.

            To get a handle on the available energy I considered the highly conservative case of a single floor assembly falling through a single inter-floor gap. Using your earlier figures of 865 tonne per floor slab falling through 3.7 metre, it would carry some 31 megajoule by the time it hit the slab beneath. Using your more recent figures of 1500 tonne and 3.8 metre gap, we have nearly 56 megajoule. These translate to between about 7.5 and 13.5 kilo of TNT.

            OK, not all of this energy would go into decoupling the impacted floor assembly from the uprights, but I have considered only one floor assembly; even in the more conservative case of WTC1 there were another nine above, all with further to fall, plus all the other mass as yet unconsidered.

            You can claim that such high absorption of energy implies a longer collapse time, but your figure of 20 gramme of TNT applied only to the first impact. Even if the first decoupling absorbed all the kinetic energy, the next impact down would be the mass of two falling floor assemblies impacting onto one, so only half of that energy would be required for the second decoupling. Then a third, then a quarter and so on, so the collapse would still accelerate. It does not matter if the initial part of the collapse was slower, because it can easily be made up for by the rest being a little bit quicker.

            I see no reason to abandon the null hypothesis on the basis you suggest.

          • Nikko

            Clark, I made all the assumptions that were needed to get the numbers out. You promised to calculate the energy available for demolition of the tower, but instead you only calculated the kinetic energy at one point, which, as you acknowledged, would not all be available. From then on it is just wishful thinking with no foundation in science – the best bit being your introduction of a time offset between the collapse of the floor slabs and the destruction of the core columns and the outer walling, such that the destruction of these columns and outer walling proceeds ahead of the floor slabs. As usual you completely ignore the vital bits of how much energy is actually needed to destroy the outer walling and the core columns as well as how the vertical direction of the kinetic energy of the falling slabs is converted into horizontal forces. You are not convincing anybody!

            I’ll leave it there. If you do come up with some real numbers, then please start a new comment as I will not be going back here to check

          • Clark

            Nikko:

            ” the best bit being your introduction of a time offset between the collapse of the floor slabs and the destruction of the core columns and the outer walling, such that the destruction of these columns and outer walling proceeds ahead of the floor slabs”

            Just watch any of the collapse videos taken from ground level near to and looking up at the Towers. You can see that the ejections proceeded in advance of the peeling outwards of the perimeter.

            No matter how many times you repeat your assertions, you will not persuade me to contradict that which is clearly visible. I have shown that there was plenty of energy to decouple the floor assemblies from the uprights. And I don’t need to convince anyone; all but a tiny minority of the relevant global academic and professional communities already agree that gravity rather than explosives account for the collapses.

        • Clark

          Why did you calculate the energy per unit floor area? The floor assemblies didn’t need to be completely destroyed for the collapse to proceed; they merely needed to be decoupled from the uprights. The videos clearly show that the vast majority of the dust welled outwards and upwards from low levels at and after the grounding of the collapses; the pulverisation was clearly an effect of the collapses rather than being associated with the cause.

          • Nikko

            To show how tiny the energy application was to pulverize concrete. That more dust was released at the end of the collapse does not negate the fact that dust was also released throughout the collapse.

          • Clark

            The vast majority of the dust was released at the end of the collapses. That is observable. There’s no reason to include most of the energy required for pulverisation with the energy diverted from acceleration. The overall collapse was bound to be stopped by the ground, so the KE was bound to become available for pulverisation at that time.

      • Node

        You, Node, only ever do that to anything that contradicts your pet theory. Paul Barbara never does it at all, and John Goss wouldn’t be capable if he tried. This is hilarious.

        See what you’ve done there, Clark? You’ve been away for a few days and we have been discussing 9/11 issues, then you come back and immediately make personal attacks, and suddenly we’re discussing Clark instead of 9/11. Is that what you want? Well yes, I think it is. You’re like a child who’s realised he gets more attention if he’s disruptive. Please stick to the issues and stop picking fights. PLEASE.

        • John Goss

          Yes and I have just had a comment moderated for pointing these argumenta ad hominem out. I choose not to engage with Clark because of his unwavering support for the thesis of the thread, usually against all logic. But even though I have not engaged him for above a week it is all right for him to return without any arguments, and just attack individuals. Now we know where the mod stands on this. I’m out.

          • Node

            No, stick around John, we need you. Maybe Clark has some of his comments moderated too.

            I don’t mind him supporting the official narrative. I think this thread works better when both sides of the argument are challenged. I just wish he’d tone down the invective.

  • Thomas Potter

    I’m not your slave boy and I’m not taking part in your inquisition of my reading retention. READ THE ONLY FORENSIC SCIENTIFIC STUDY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND STOP NITPICKING THOSE WHO HAVE READ IT. How sad no one here is interested in the truth. οΌˆοΈΆοΈΏοΈΆοΌ‰

    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:

    1. DEBRIS: What debris? There was so little debris from each 110-story building that there was no β€œpile” or β€œstack.” 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 β€œno collapse.” See Chapter 9.

    2. 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.

    3. SEISMIC IMPACT: β€œHad the towers collapsed, foundation bedrock would have experienced tremendous force hammering on it throughout the β€˜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.

    4. 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.

    5. DUST: Photos, videos and witness testimony show the towers turned to powder in mid-air. Tim McGinn, NYPD, said, β€œI 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 β€œrecorded 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.

    https://www.worldcat.org/title/where-did-the-towers-go-evidence-of-directed-free-energy-technology-on-911/oclc/704874500&referer=brief_results πŸ˜‰

  • Thomas Potter

    If you are so dirt poor that you cannot scrape up $30 to buy a book, you must be using a public Internet connection. And if you cannot locate a copy of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? at a public library near you, try the Library of Congress. πŸ˜‰

    https://lccn.loc.gov/2010916516

  • Kempe

    I come back after a few days and all the truthers are bitching amongst themselves! Great fun!!

    Of all the cockeyed theories to come out of 9/11 Judy Wood’s has to be the most lunatic. Even she won’t speculate as to the precise nature of the fantastical direct energy device she holds responsible.

    As with other theories it’s based on false premise and distorted evidence. To begin with the buildings were not pulverized as claimed. If they were what went to Fresh Kills landfill site? There’s a good refutation of her theory here:-

    https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM

    • John Goss

      Welcome back Kempe. Nobody’s discussing Judy Wood except you and book-promoter Mr Potter – the guy trying to sell a book 5 1/2 years old that nobody seems to want to buy. We’ve moved on.

      The big questions to address that you missed are my comment using pilots for 911 truth freedom of information requests which show that at least two of the flights (175 and 93) were still flying after they had supposedly crashed (top of this page) and Richard Gage’s brilliant refutation last week of NIST’s fairy story repeatedly posted by Paul Barbara. Both these have been ignored and we would like to know what is wrong with them.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h9o-CXBEgI&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH1sjoLYRFihJdxG6OsEZbKF

      • Kempe

        Don’t follow that. A message was sent the aircraft after they crashed and was not acknowledged, ie not received (because the aircraft had by then been destroyed). How does that prove they were still flying?

    • Node

      I come back after a few days and all the truthers are bitching amongst themselves!

      Oh, Kempe, your jibe reveals so much about the Believer mindset. You are locked into THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED DOWN FROM ABOVE. It’s an act of faith, a blind adherence to an implausible, nay impossible story. It’s all or nothing – swallow it whole or reject it entirely. If you question it, everything falls apart; if you reject it the implications for the rest of your cosy ordered world are unbearable. Therefore it must be true, end of debate, and lo! …. there are lots of other people who’ve come to exactly the same conclusion for exactly the same reasons, so that proves it.

      But like a religious fanatic, you imagine dissent is the product of rigid thinking like your own. You imagine that we ‘truthers’ have an instruction set, a religion like your own. Here’s the bit you have difficulty grasping, Kempe : we have arrived at our beliefs by a process of independent thought!

      We have processed a huge database consisting of truths, half-truths and lies and drawn our own conclusions. And since we have different minds, experiences and knowledge, and the database is incomplete, our conclusions aren’t identical. There is agreement on the big things, eg that the official narrative is ridiculous, but the details of the alternative explanation are still up for grabs. That’s why we ‘truthers’ are still seeking new clues. That’s what I’m doing on this thread. What’s your excuse?

      So your intended jibe isn’t an insult, it’s a validation. The “truthers are bitching amongst themselves” because they are still seeking the truth and don’t unquestioningly accept what others tell them.

      Thank you.

      • Clark

        Is this truly a case of Node’s ability to read Kempe’s mind, or just typical pan-human control freakery?

        Node, I’ve seen no clearer demonstration of your own illusory superiority. You represent the enlightened. Those who disagree are sheeple. Ho hum.

      • John Goss

        “There is agreement on the big things, eg that the official narrative is ridiculous, but the details of the alternative explanation are still up for grabs.”

        Well said. And thanks for the vote of confidence yesterday.

        New discoveries open up new questions. It is no longer just a matter of where did the towers go but other major issues have now arisen like where did the planes go? And when the truth can be nothing but the truth, rather than accept it as the truth it is ignored. It is ignored because it gives credibility to the glaringly obvious observation that thin aluminium 1/4″ thick does not cut through a structural steel.i-beam 14″ wide.stanchions welded and bolted together 2′ apart and supported by welded cross beams.

        • Clark

          John Goss, where are you getting your structural details of the Twin Towers? Because they are at odds with every account I’ve found on-line. Are you just making them up?

          Yes, I expect that many metres of aluminium impacting orthogonally at about 200 metre per second can break through about a centimetre steel. It would seem to be a case of the compressive strength of aluminium versus the shear strength of whatever steel was used. Are you claiming that the Twin Towers’ perimeter members were fourteen inch solid steel? Or are you merely trying to give that impression to the unwary, in a propagandistic sort of way?

        • Clark

          “…other major issues have now arisen like where did the planes go?”

          Both me and Kempe already showed you photographic and testimonial evidence of aircraft debris. At least display enough honesty to acknowledge this.

        • John Goss

          “It is no longer just a matter of where did the towers go but other major issues have now arisen like where did the planes go?”

          How can a plane (Flight 175) still be flying 20 minutes after it allegedly crashed into the South Tower (WTC2)?

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

          And flight United 93 was 500 miles away when it allegedly crashed creating the crater at Shanksville. The authorities do not answer questions.

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html

      • Kempe

        The “official” story as you describe it is the only scientifically feasible explanation which is backed up by sound evidence. I’m fully aware of the growing tendency of truthers to avoid being trapped and ridiculed by refusing to back one particular theory but to keep repeating the mantra “I don’t know what happened, I just know the official theory is wrong.” Isn’t enough. The truth movement has to provide positive evidence for one theory and unite behind that theory if it is to move forward. Of course it can’t; firstly because there is no hard, positive evidence which supports any of the alternative explanations and secondly because of the very nature of truthers. Truthers set out to believe anything that goes against conventional wisdom because it makes them feel empowered, that they are party to information unavailable to the masses (sheeple). The progression of this is that if they feel too many people subscribe to one theory they have to move onto something even more outlandish to feel empowered over them.

        This process can easily be traced back through the progression of 9/11 theories. First there was LIHOP (which nobody ever mentions these days), then controlled demolition, substituted planes, holographic planes, “no planes”, mini-nukes and now Dr Wood’s death ray. It might be interesting to speculate what the next fantasy will be. That the WTC never really existed perhaps (I’m not sure somebody hasn’t done that one already). Whatever it is the 9/11 truth movement is, I’m glad to say, doomed to become more fractured by infighting and even more ludicrous.

        • Node

          The truth movement has to provide positive evidence for one theory and unite behind that theory if it is to move forward.

          No, you still can’t get the hang of this independent thought idea, can you? Listen, it’s quite simple. If some powerful people say they want something to happen, and then it happens, and the powerful people benefit hugely from it but they blame it on those who suffer most from it, and it would have been very easy for the powerful people to arrange, but unfeasibly difficult for those they blamed, and the powerful people won’t allow an investigation of what happened, then a sensible person won’t unquestioningly believe what the powerful people said and will try to …. Kempe! …. Kempe! ….are you paying attention? …. oh, I see, you stopped reading because the BBC’s explanation was much simpler than mine.

          Ah well, suffice it to say that the strength of the truth movement lies in its lack of structure – thousands of different groups and individuals exploring different approaches, and that is why the PTB are scared of it and try to encourage the belief that it has to unite behind one theory if it wants to move forward. Let me guess what you think we should call ourselves – the Truth Party? Yes?

          Aye, right.

          • Clark

            “First there was LIHOP (which nobody ever mentions these days)”

            …but which would have been the easiest to arrange, the safest to get away with, and for which there is a good deal of evidence, all of which seems to have been thoroughly ignored or excused by the various 9/11 investigations.

            Conversely, Twin Tower Demolition Theory has, so far as I can tell, NO supporting evidence and LOTS of evidence against it, yet it has become the hallmark of Trutherism. Ironic, eh?

            Node, really:

            “No, you still can’t get the hang of this independent thought idea, can you? […] Ah well, suffice it to say that the strength of the truth movement lies in its lack of structure – thousands of different groups and individuals exploring different approaches,”

            (cough)

            “…quit distracting the thread with this ridiculous theory.”

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-101/#comment-644389

            Hypocrisy? Node? Surely not… I’m sorry to say, Kempe has you tagged:

            “Truthers set out to believe anything that goes against conventional wisdom because it makes them feel empowered, that they are party to information unavailable to the masses (sheeple)”

            You wish to remain the biggest fish in your small pond, while pretending the pond is much bigger than it really is. I mentioned demolition theory to a friend recently. She’d never heard of it. When I’d explained, she screwed up her face and exclaimed “but that’s psychosis”! Oh I suppose she could be a secret agent…

  • Clark

    Ah, Node, stuff gets challenged on this thread, does it? Nuclear demolition and a piece of the core “turning to dust” gets challenged, does it?

    Seems you’re trying to steal credit on behalf of your team of demolition theorists, because if things like that DO get challenged, it’s me and/or Kempe challenging it, and we get called secret agents for our trouble – and THAT goes totally unchallenged.

    It really is quite ridiculous. The US government tortures, and attacks, invades and occupies country after country in “response” to an attack it knows to have been perpetrated by its own ally, but apparently the sort of question we’re supposed to encourage among the public is “but doesn’t that blurry video of the core remnant prove that nukes were planted under the WTC?”

    You lot need to weed. I’ve spent countless hours on wild goose chases – colour imbalances in the NTSC video format, mains fusebox parts that supposedly blow up buildings, tin cans that don’t melt on cue, men who know nothing supposedly murdered, aircraft that can’t exceed 150 knots, vans seen at night, trickles of molten metal that morph into lakes of molten steel – all repeated ad nauseum in two-hour YouTube propaganda vids full of edited quote-mining… At some point I was bound to start dismissing the entire field as crap – life’s just too short. Fix it, or reap the contempt you’ve earned.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Clark December 29, 2016 at 03:22
      ‘…men who know nothing supposedly murdered,…’

      Now I know you are referring to Barry Jennings among those ‘supposedly murdered’. I have pointed out to you before that Barry Jennings said:
      (a) The Twin Towers still stood AFTER the explosion on the staircase: you continue to blame damage from the collapsing towers:
      (b) He not only experienced the stair collapse on the 6th floor, he heard other explosions (and he specifically said they were not the fuel tanks): again, you continue to blame damage from the collapsing towers:
      (c) When he was eventually led out by firefighters, he was told not to look down, but he could feel he was walking over bodies: you continue to state ‘no one died in WTC 7.

      Now, of course, this does not fit with what you have been told, and accept, happened. So how do you deal with it? You don’t call Barry Jennings a liar; you just ignore his TESTIMONY, and continue to parrot the ‘Official Narrative’ that no one died in WTC 7, and that it collapsed because of damage and fires from falling debris.

      If you check the following link, it details how Barry Jennings mysteriously died, at 53, with no cause of death announced, TWO DAYS before the NIST ‘Final Report’ on WTC 7 was released:
      ‘…Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 2008, 53 year old Barry Jennings died, two days before the release of the NIST Final Report on the collapse of WTC7….’ http://jenningsmystery.com/
      Did Jennings ‘know nothing’, or was he a in a position to blow NIST’s ‘conclusions’ into a thousand pieces, as he was a witness to explosions BEFORE the WTC 2 (the first to collapse) collapsed. He quite clearly states, at 4.59 and again at 17.15 minutes into the video in above website, that BOTH TOWERS were still standing AFTER the stairs blew up.
      Now here is another interesting fact; look at the plan of the WTC complex on this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

      Note that WTC 2, the first to collapse, is furthest from WTC 7 by a long way, and that WTC 5 & 6 stand between WTC’s 1 & 2 and WTC 7, which further tends to lessen the ability of massive damage from WTC 1 & 2.

      Here is the ‘alleged’ timeline: Barry Jennings also says in the video that he (and Hess) were in WTC 7 when the ‘second plane struck’.

      Now I assume another one of the men you are referring to as ”…men who know nothing supposedly murdered,…’ would be (correct me if I’m wrong) Danny Jowenko. He just happened to crash his car into a tree just days after his expert opinion (that WTC 7 was brought down with controlled demolition) was repeated by Dr. Sabrosky on Press TV:
      ‘Phone Call With Danny Jowenko- Died 3 days latter After PressTv interview’:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbRd6gzFWk
      ‘…Jeff Hill (from Canada)- made this call in Canada to Germany (Danny Jowenko). Three days after PressTV did an interview with Dr. Sabrosky who mentioned Danny Jowenko – Danny was killed in a strange car accident. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko, one of world’s leading building demolition experts, was killed in a one-car accident last week when his car slammed into a tree. Jowenko received international attention as the expert who unequivocally described the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 911 as a “demolition.”
      Jowenko made the judgment before he knew it was WTC 7 he was watching on the video. He commented: “This is a controlled demolition which was carried out by a team of experts.”:

      I suggest you check out ‘Boston Brakes’, perfected by the CIA in Boston as a way to kill troublesome folks by an apparent ‘car accident’ (remember Michael Hastings? But these were but two of a whole slew of ‘suspicious accidents’, including in the UK).

      I suppose 4 or 5 pages down the road, you will expect we’ve all forgotten this evidence, and again you’ll be likely repeating the same old ‘no one died, and the collapsing Twin Towers caused the damage which did for WTC 7.

      • Clark

        Paul, no, I maintain that no one was killed or injured by the collapse of Building 7.

        Link Jennings’ interview again. I’m sure he said “Look one way and the building was there; look the other and it was gone. So at that point, the South Tower was already down.

        Though really, it matters not a jot. Jennings was escorted out of Building 7 at about 13:00. There were bodies all over the place by then; it’s no secret. The principle of controlled demolition is that explosives remove all support simultaneously or in tight sequence, to permit the building’s weight to destroy its own structure. A&E 9/11 Truth argue that the 2.25 seconds of acceleration at free-fall rate prove that this was done to Building 7. But Building 7 didn’t fall until about 17:21, so explosions earlier than that are entirely irrelevant to the proposal of controlled demolition. Any explosions in the morning are nowhere in the running. That’s why Jennings’ testimony couldn’t possibly have been any threat.

        Jowenko would have been more of an asset than a threat, because he maintained that the Twin Towers fell due to damage and fire.

        You need to recalibrate your evil detector; it’s too sensitive and producing mainly false positives.

        • Clark

          Paul, are you thinking that the officer who told Jennings not to look was trying to keep a secret? That seems extremely unlikely. There were bodies all over the place. The emergency services were overrun, and kept being forced out of areas by fire and collapsing debris. The officer was probably just trying to keep Jennings from getting even more shocked. There were thousands dead by then; it would have been hopeless to try and keep it covered up.

          • Clark

            And Paul, why do you repeatedly misrepresent my position? I hope it’s not because you know it annoys me, prompts me to respond so that the likes of Vronsky will call me an agent again. I hope you don’t wish me driven from the thread, as John Goss seems to.

            I’m still wondering about Building 7. The FEMA and NIST reports are contradictory, the eroded steel has never been accounted for, NIST won’t (probably aren’t permitted to) release their data, Silverstein apparently lied about talking to the Fire Department commander, and I regard the 2.25 seconds of acceleration at free-fall rate as significant. But if it was brought down by explosives, it didn’t hurt anyone unless someone was still in there that we don’t know about.

          • Paul Barbara

            Yet again, you are avoiding my point that jENNING’S SAYS HE WAS STEPPING OVER DEAD BODIES WHILST STILL INSIDE WTC 7, and that the stair case blew up WHILE BOTH WTC 2 AND WTC 1 WERE STILL STANDING.
            Jenning’s says the WTC 2 collapsed AFTER the stairs blew up. Sure, very shortly after, but after.

            And did you look at the ground plan I linked to above, and the distance between WTC 1 & 2, and that WTC 5 & 6 stood between them and WTC 7? Of course, the much taller Twins would have cause SOME damage to WTC 7, but it would have been limited by distance and WTC 5 & 6.

            The consequences of that timeline seem too much for you to handle, so let me assist: WTC 7 was brought down with pre-planned demolition charges. ?Comprende?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Clark December 29, 2016 at 23:45
          ‘Paul, no, I maintain that no one was killed or injured by the collapse of Building 7.
          Though really, it matters not a jot. Jennings was escorted out of Building 7 at about 13:00. There were bodies all over the place by then; it’s no secret….’

          Barry Jennings says he walked over dead bodies before exiting WTC 7; so how on earth did they die? They weren’t lying there dead when Jenning’s first entered WTC 7; and sure there were dead bodies ‘outside’, but the Government Narrative’ is ‘No one died in WTC 7’. Do you disagree with the that narrative? Why did they LIE, when the firefighters who rescued Jennings would have known full well there were dead bodies in WTC 7?

          ‘…Link Jennings’ interview again. I’m sure he said β€œLook one way and the building was there; look the other and it was gone….’ So at that point, the South Tower was already down….’

          Link Jennings interview AGAIN? I linked it two of my comments back – if you spent more time looking at the links, instead of jumping to comment on what you haven’t bothered to read or watch, things would likely run smoother and with less friction on here. Yes, Jenning’s said that; but he was looking out of a window he had smashed with a fire extinguisher, AFTER the staircase had blown up and he and Hess had made it back to the eighth floor. Soo neither Tower had collapsed when the stair case blew up. What made it blow up, then?

          Your statement that Jowenko was an asset to the government narrative would be laughable, if the subject was not so important.

          ‘…But Building 7 didn’t fall until about 17:21, so explosions earlier than that are entirely irrelevant to the proposal of controlled demolition. Any explosions in the morning are nowhere in the running. That’s why Jennings’ testimony couldn’t possibly have been any threat….’
          http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-timeline
          ‘β€’ 9:59 am – The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses.’

          I also linked the timeline in above comment, but obviously once again you didn’t seem to get the ignificance – thestaircase blew up before 9.49 am (to me that means the stairs blew up in the morning (which as I’ve posted later ties in with Sullivans evidence that one of the first thing demolition people do is ‘take out the stairwells at various levels’ – get it? It’s a part of controlled demolition practice! But to you, ‘…Any explosions in the morning are nowhere in the running….’!!

          Barry Jenning’s testimony ‘couldn’t have been any threat’? So why did he get threatened, I believe with death threats but anyhow that he would lose his job, and that was why he asked the makers of ‘Loose Change Final Cut’ NOT to use his unedited interview, and it was only used after Barry Jenninng’s had given a BBC interview I believe saying he ‘had not seen dead bodies’ in WTC 7 (which did not conflict with what he had told ‘Loose Change’, but which was meant by the BBC to indicate that there had been no dead bodies.

          If you haven’t checked out the above links, I’m pretty confidant that you haven’t checked out the ‘Boston Brakes’ business.

          Perhaps you ought to read a post, check the links, and THEN compose a reply.

          • Clark

            “…the Government Narrative’ is β€˜No one died in WTC 7’”

            Can you link a government source for that, please? The lobby wasn’t used as a temporary morgue by any chance, was it?

            “Link Jennings interview AGAIN? I linked it two of my comments back – if you spent more time looking at the links, instead of jumping to comment on what you haven’t bothered to read or watch, things would likely run smoother and with less friction on here”.

            …and if you’d bothered engaging months back when I’d gone to the trouble of writing out a transcript of Jennings’ interview… Please remember that a load of you question ME, but none of you question EACH OTHER – of course it’s not like you’re a conspiracy or anything and I shouldn’t suggest it’s a ploy, but it does give me much more to do than any of you lot. Comprende?

            “‘[Jennings] said β€œLook one way and the building was there; look the other and it was gone….’ So at that point, the South Tower was already down….’

            – Yes, Jenning’s said that; but he was looking out of a window he had smashed with a fire extinguisher, AFTER the staircase had blown up and he and Hess had made it back to the eighth floor”.

            Yes, that’s right. Jennings didn’t see the South Tower fall, presumably because he was in the stairway at the time.

            “Soo neither Tower had collapsed when the stair case blew up”.

            No, that doesn’t follow.

            “What made it blow up, then?”

            Probably some effect from the collapse of the South Tower, but does it matter? With things catching fire and blowing up all day (especially around 09:59), it’s spectacularly poor “evidence” for controlled demolition of WTC7; certainly killing a witness two days before the report was to be released would raise far more suspicion, since Jennings and what he’d been saying were already well known long since.

            Yes, I have heard of “Boston brakes”, and a couple of other vehicle hacks, but I think it very unlikely Jowenko was murdered. Why bother? He hadn’t mentioned the matter for years or Jeff Hill wouldn’t have troubled to ‘phone him. Sabrosky’s just a crazed conspiracy theorist few have ever heard of (it’d make more sense to kill Sabrosk ‘cos he’s got a much bigger mouth) and very few people take PressTV seriously anyway.

  • Clark

    Thomas Potter, don’t you start feeling encouraged by my chiding of the locals. You ignore and distort evidence on an epic scale. You don’t even acknowledge the obvious in the collapse videos and aftermath photos – the massive roaring of the collapses, the huge falling perimeter sections, nearly all the dust welling up as the collapses hit bottom, and the extensive debris pile dwarfing plant machinery.

    • Clark

      If that’s who I expect it to be (which it almost surely is in the Truthers’ endless recycling of a few dubious factoids), he was merely an explosives handler, not a “demolition expert” – he did not plan demolitions, he just followed others’ instructions. Apols in advance if he’s really an expert…

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Clark December 29, 2016 at 21:29
        If you had bothered to watch the very short 9.11 minute video, you would not be tempted to make such assertions.
        At the opening of the video, there is a message: ‘For anyone who doubts Tom Sullivan’s expertise, please see the link in the video description before trolling. Thank you’.
        Does someone have to hold your hand when you visit the loo?

          • Clark

            Yep, “Explosives Technician and Site Photographer”, two and a half years experience rigging explosives to other people’s plans. That does not make him an expert on controlled demolition.

            The founder of the company he worked for really was a demolition expert, and knew the Twin Towers could fall when he saw the damage because he knew their structure, and recognised it to be vulnerable. Another expert in controlled demolition, Danny Jowenko, maintained that Building 7 was demolished but that the Twin Towers underwent top-down progressive collapse due to damage and fire.

    • John Goss

      I thought it might be obvious by now that I no longer engage with Clark on 911. I do not like his insults. I do not like his pretensions to scientific knowledge based on an O level or something. He has a right to his opinion. I respect that. I know his opinion is very suspect and not based on any scientific knowledge. I gave him an opportunity to get to grips with the practical side of Newtonian physics. He ignored it. If anybody presents a paper he runs a mile. I would too with his knowledge. Please leave me alone Clark. I have had enough.

      • Clark

        John Goss writes:

        “…I no longer engage with Clark on 911”

        However, this is as dishonest as his claims to an engineer’s understanding of the collapses, because he continues with a load of lies about me. John Goss knows that I got grade A O-Level Physics, grade B O-level Additional Mathematics (which has a large element of mechanics) and grade B A-Level Physics, all Oxford examination board, and was accepted onto B.Sc. Physics with Electronics at London University, because I sent him scans of the appropriate documents some weeks ago. Since I am more honest than him, he would be wise to accept that I was also encouraged to take the Oxbridge entrance examination, but declined, finding Cambridge University too elitist and stuffy on my UCCA visit.

        Shame on you, John Goss.

        • John Goss

          Please leave me alone.

          For the benefit of your prestige I accept that, unsolicited, you sent me photographs of your qualifications and asked me to destroy them. Anybody who works to achieve qualifications should be commended. You do not need to share your achievements with everybody. Your criticisms of me as a well-qualified engineer were out of order and necessitated me to explain some of my background in mechanical engineering. I am not a structural engineer. I leave that to the experts. But you know more than a demolitions expert authorised by the government to handle explosives and responsible for his own task in the process. Engineers are experts in their own fields. They have unions to prevent non-qualified people trying to do their jobs because they might have seen a video. In engineering we all have our specific skills. That is why I choose not to engage with you on anything but a very basic level. This Christmas I bought a family member a Newton’s Cradle from Aldi and we played with it. Eventually I decided to plug the distance from one of the end balls with padding which was greater than I expected with carboard from the other presents. The result was no different from what I expected. Guess what. The balls stopped almost immediately. When you can get your head round basic “practical” physics get back to me. Until then leave me alone. Please.

          • Clark

            No, YOU leave ME alone, and I’ll stop giving it back. GOT THAT? Look what you wrote:

            “When you can get your head round basic β€œpractical” physics get back to me”

            I’ve been doing practical physics all my fucking life, patching up the rubbish you and your corporate bosses churn out as cheaply as you can, and fixing it so it doesn’t break again. I fix stuff for the poor, all sorts of stuff, using little more than junk and my wits. I understand how stuff breaks; it’s my speciality. Stop calling me an ignoramus for your purposes of propaganda, stop maligning my abilities with your false authority, and I’ll treat you with appropriate respect, GOT THAT?

          • John Goss

            Clark when I read the message above I realise you are a good man in your heart. The world is broken and nobody can fix it. Nobody can bring back the victims of 9/11 and tying your mast to the government lies does not help children with broken hearts for the loss of a parent. In your heart you are good.

            Nevertheless you returned to the blog with flying insults against me and others: “. . . and John Goss wouldn’t be capable if he tried.

            This is hilarious.”

            Until then I thought your had had some kind of Pauline enlightenment. But then you returned and the invective against me was still there for whatever reason ( I suspect Gage’s paper). You are a good man in your heart. You are intelligent and kind (when the Devil does not get into you).

            I cannot engage you and prefer you do not respond to my comments on this thread. Otherwise I wish you well.

          • Clark

            John, I wish you well, too. I do not support government lies; we merely differ as to what lies we think they’re telling. For reasons of physics I am almost certain that the Twin Towers collapsed without the help of explosives – the design looks very cheap and nasty to me (I’ve got good at spotting crap design); it had cross-girders only on the mechanical floors, and needed shock absorbers on every floor truss – thousands of them in total – to prevent the occupants from getting seasick on windy days. Ah see; shock absorbers are cheaper than girders… Fuck’s sake; you could laugh if it wasn’t so tragic.

            I think that most of the investigators did what they could under immense political pressure – EPA were pressured to pronounce the dust harmless, NIST were pressured not to criticise the buildings. The FBI were pressured to conceal how the hijackers were welcomed into the US and how much was known about them, the 9/11 Commission was chosen to smooth everything over and absolve all the authorities – in all, an immense cover-up; thousands of workers bullied from above to produce politically convenient reports. And because of that cover-up, the public cannot tell who knew in advance – though Israel certainly seemed to, which begs the question of how the neocons could possibly have not. A proper investigation is needed, absolutely.

            But my major objection is to the hiding of ongoing US collaboration with Saudi-indoctrinated religious extremists. The neocon cabal succeeded in depicting the 9/11 attackers as their enemy when in fact they make use of them wherever possible. The sort of people who flew aircraft into civilian buildings are the same sort of people who have been massacring civilians in Iraq, Aleppo and Benghazi. If that one fact were more widely understood, the public outrage could halt the disgusting US foreign policy of alternately exploiting and then betraying these unfortunate indoctrinated young men (as we’ve just seen, yet again, in Aleppo), a covert policy that has proceeded unchecked since the 1945 Quincy Agreement.

            No, I do not support government lies.

  • Clark

    John Goss, Truthers in general, you really just don’t get it, do you? Ten pieces of slightly suggestive dubious bullshit are no more convincing than one piece. A hundred such pieces are no more convincing either.

    ONE piece of decent evidence is all it takes to make a difference. THAT is how science works.

    • Paul Barbara

      Is not Barry Jenning’s personal experience and testimony that he heard, and experienced, explosions BEFORE either WTC 2 or WTC 1 not ‘evidence’? Is Barry Jenning’s saying the stair case exploded beneath him not evidence (incidentally in the short video John posted, notice Sullivan saying at 2.11 minutes in ‘at that point – (very early) – staircases are cut at intervals’ – fit’s Barry’s testimony to a ‘T’, does it not?
      Is his testimony ‘slightly suggestive dubious bullshit’, would you say?

      (Long silence……….)!

      • Paul Barbara

        And I should add, do you REALLY think you know more about building demolition than Sullivan (or Danny Jowenko)?
        Or 2,753 (and bound to rise) REAL Architects and Engineers?

        • Clark

          No, I think Jowenko may be right, and am certain that he knew more about demolition than Sullivan who, incidentally, isn’t dead yet, if death is what you happen to find convincing.

          • Clark

            It isn’t Jennings’ testimony that I find to be slightly suggestive bullshit. It’s the mountainous shadow which Truthers project from that molehill. Hundreds of people heard or otherwise experienced explosions on 9/11. Most of them are fine, but one gave some interviews, then got ill and died. Obsessive Truthers then hounded his family until they went into seclusion. It’s shameless and disgraceful.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark December 30, 2016 at 01:16

            ‘… Most of them are fine, but one gave some interviews, then got ill and died…’
            Over 100 ‘First Responders’ claimed they heard explosions, and some said they saw the distincive flashes of controlled demolition charges. And another young witness who insisted he heard explosions, and said he didn’t see any planes, also died, of alleged suicide. John O’Neill is also believed by many Truthers to have escaped the Towers, only to be murdered (given your disinterest in following up links, I won’t try to find relevant links for you).

            ‘…Obsessive Truthers then hounded his family until they went into seclusion. It’s shameless and disgraceful….’
            Do you have a source for that? My information is that by the time Truthers went looking for the family, after the death, they had already disappeared. So what, absent some evidence, is so ‘shameless and disgraceful’ about the Truther’s trying to get to the bottom of Jenning’s death?

      • Kempe

        Not back to Barry Jennings! Hess and Jennings found the OEM bunker had been evacuated which occurred around 9:37 a.m. what they experienced was the collapse of the Twin Towers and the subsequent damage to WTC 7 as they were trying to get out of the building. Jennings claimed he had his eyes closed as he was led across the lobby and had the “experience” of stepping over bodies. Just what is that and how did Jennings recognise it with his eyes shut? Had he ever stepped over a body before? Footage of the lobby shot before the collapse also shows no bodies but a lot of dust and debris which would’ve been disturbed had bodies been removed en masse.

        The other point is that the alleged explosion would’ve occurred around eight hours before WTC 7 collapsed. How did that work?

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Kempe December 30, 2016 at 15:06

          I made it abundantly clear what my point was, and asked a few pointed questions, which you have ignored, par for your course.
          Total BS. As Barry says in the video, the Towers were STILL STANDING AFTER THE STAIRCASE BLEW UP; he saw them out of the window he busted out with a fire hydrant – so no damage from falling debris caused the stairs to explode!
          What a foolish argument – sure, he says he didn’t look down, but knew he was walking over dead bodies. One does not have to have done so previously to know that.

    • Ronnie Young

      “ONE piece of decent evidence is all it takes”

      Well that would be the freefall, or it could be the temperatures in the rubble pile, or the hundreds of witnesses to explosions, or the tilt of the south tower, or the “missing jolt”… the evidence is more than strong.

      • Clark

        Freefall applies to WTC7, not to the Twin Towers – me and Nikko are going through those calculations higher up this thread. I have not seen the expected temperatures in the rubble pile estimated – you can’t call something an anomaly unless you say what it should be. Yes, there were loads of explosions all day long, but those are to be expected where there is fire and massive damage; they all have to happen at the moment of collapse to indicate controlled demolition, but there is evidence against that. The tilt of the South Tower is not the problem it’s made out to be because other forces were acting on the top section, see here:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I1UMuBWRE

        The missing jolt is just silly as it relies upon the top sections not tipping at all.

        These memes get repeated over and over, but several times nothing is still nothing.

        • Paul Barbara

          If you watched the Sullivan video you would see that Sullivan says after initially taking out the some staircases and cuttin major beams, buildings are still safe to work in; they are only approx. 20% weakened. So, once again’ NO, all the demolition charges and cuttings required to NOT have to be done all at once (otherwise no one would join a demolition team; ‘hey, Jim, it’s your turn to cut the beams with the torch while be blow the joint up’.

          • Clark

            Paul, it all makes no odds. We have video of the cheap, crappy Twin Towers crumpling at the damaged zones. It’s obvious what happened to the Twin Towers.

            Yes, cutting is prepared in advance, but demolition charges are detonated simultaneously or in timed volleys to maximise conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and thus into destruction, and to produce the necessary symmetry. Demolition theorists argue that the collapses were “too symmetrical” to have been ordinary collapses, but then argue that random blasts spread over the preceding hour produced that symmetry. Such arguments make no sense and are not needed anyway, so I reject them. Unfortunately, they have grown into a self-referential mythology, wherein demolition theory supports suspicion about a few random deaths, and suspicion about those deaths supports demolition theory – though not with any consistency, or else Jowenko would be alive and Sullivan would have been murdered.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark December 30, 2016 at 04:54
            You’ve had ample time to watch Barry Jenning’s fairly short interview, so you now know that the Twin Towers were both still standing when the stairwell blew apart as Jennings and Hess tried to leave; but you have just ignored the question, ‘What caused the stairs to explode?’
            You will also have seen, if you watched the same short video, that Jenning’s says he walked over dead bodies in the lobby. What did they die of? Hypothermia? Heart attacks?

        • Ronnie Young

          Thanks for the reply Clark but I’m sorry but it’s all hand waving:

          “Freefall applies to WTC7, not to the Twin Towers” – indeed but it’s the presence of freefall (in wtc7) that is important. I have yet to see an explanation other than CD that makes any sense. What’s yours?

          “Expected” temperatures should be somewhat less than those produced by office fires, yet there are numerous witness reports of molten steel, and other materials clearly at very high (unexpected) temperatures, and of course NASA recorded temperatures way in excess of office fires. Your explanation for that is?

          ” they all have to happen at the moment of collapse to indicate controlled demolition” – big assumption surely? If I was going to try and disguise a CD, I would certainly consider blowing up the support structure in a sort of kid on way, so I can’t accept your assertion and the witnesses not only spoke of explosions but from fire dept staff to news anchors so many spoke of controlled demo. Don’t you agree?

          Re your tilt video, it supports the CD case as the tilting stopped. What happened to all that momentum going sideways?

          No the missing jolt relies on physics: for the falling part to exert a force greater then that of it’s mass it *must* decelerate (f=ma), and of course the undamaged part was supporting the mass of the falling part with a factor of safety before. Therefore the falling part cannot accelerate through the undamaged part – which it did, did it not?

          These “memes” get repeated cos they make sense. As I said I haven’t heard proper alternative explanations for these rather important points. People just rely on their belief systems eg “I don’t believe they could keep it quiet” and I believe in facts and evidence. Tell you what, just explain the freefall…

          • Clark

            I have examined all the arguments you present, and to my own satisfaction, none of them hold up. You can go through the same process as I did, if you can be bothered. It’s not my responsibility to educate you.

          • Clark

            Look, if you really want me to go through it all, ask here and I will. But if you’re a Truther and you think I’m a secret agent, please don’t; I have better things to do than argue with the closed minded.

            Building 7’s 2.25 seconds of acceleration at roughly free-fall is fascinating – the raw graphs show that the outer faΓ§ade actually exceeded free-fall briefly. There is a possible explanation that doesn’t involve explosives – which is that the core fell first, and was thus pulling down on the faΓ§ade via the horizontal structures. I’ll be watching developments regarding Building 7 because I find it an interesting physical matter, but I’m quite satisfied that Saudi extremists flew aircraft into the Twin Towers, which weren’t rigged with explosives.

            My Big 9/11 Question is: after 9/11, how do NATO continue to get away with using Wahhabist extremists to further their covert foreign policy, eg. Libya and Syria? Maybe if “9/11 Truth” didn’t completely discredit itself, we’d have made some progress on that matter.

            What Sibel Edmonds Knows, by Gary Hood:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VLNfMcOW_E

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘”One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.” – Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

    • Clark

      Or you can condition yourself, by enthusing for all arguments that support your chosen idea, and rejecting any that contradict it. That’s how religions work; even minority religions like Jehovah’s Witlessism, which has convinced a similar proportion of the general population as the proportion of architects and engineers in A&E 9/11 Truth.

      No, Paul. I do NOT reject demolition of the Twin Towers due to conditioning. I reject it because I examined the proposed evidence and arguments and found them at best unconvincing and at worst outright fabricated.

      • Clark

        Huxley is one of my favourite writers, as it goes. The Doors of Perception, obviously, for an old tripper like me. I much prefer Brave New World to Orwell’s 1984, though both have proven prophetic, despite being critical of diametrically opposed political ideologies. I love Island, which I must read again. But most relevant to Trutherism, I have The Devils of Loudun right here on my bookshelf.

    • Kempe

      Well if you’re going back to the Eiffel Tower London’s Crystal Palace collapsed entirely because of a fire as did it’s American and German copies.

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

      As you’ve already seen several buildings left untouched by the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco collapsed as a result of the subsequent fire.

      Now awaiting the predictable response; hey weren’t high rise buildings and not exactly identical in every detail to the WTC so don’t count etc.

      • John Goss

        Crystal Palace was not brought down entirely by fire. The fire started before 7 pm. It was the following day that part of it collapsed. It really was a flimsy structure – apart from the two-towers (north and south) designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel which both withstood the fire which incidentally consumed the whole of the building from the bottom up.

        Two very important facts you failed to mention. Crystal Palace was designed not by an architect but by a gardener. Surely a lesson there in engineering. Secondly it was built in the middle of the nineteenth century when structural steel buildings were still in their infancy.

        The shell, and Brunel’s towers, were mostly intact after the fire despite its flimsiness.

        https://www.architecture.com/Explore/Buildings/CrystalPalace.aspx

        As you mention yourself it was not a high-rise building and we are not comparing like with like.

          • John Goss

            nearly all the domed roof collapsed but even in your aerial photot the side structures are still standing. But it really was a weak building design.

        • Kempe

          The Crystal Palace stood for 85 years, beyond the 60 year design life of many modern buildings, most of that time in an exposed location subjected to extremes of temperature and high winds. Paxton designed a number of glass houses and had the help of engineers Sir Charles Fox, Sir William Cubbitt and Sir William Barlow when designing Crystal Palace. Barlow built the train shed at Kings Cross the same year (1851) and later went on to re-design the Tay Bridge and build the train shed at St Pancras. Brunel’s Paddington Station was completed in 1854.

          You might notice that all these structures are still standing and still performing their original function. Not bad for a science in its infancy!

          • John Goss

            “Not bad for a science in its infancy!”

            Yes but it was a lot more advanced in the twentieth century. I can see you are coming round to the view that fire did not bring down the three skyscrapers. πŸ™‚

    • Node

      You would think people would be frightened to go to work in this flimsy structure.

      Yes indeed. Your link describes the BOK Tower in Tulsa, Oklahoma which “is a close copy in nearly every significant way, except … it is just half the size [….] designed by the same architect as the World Trade Center buildings, and explicitly intended to be a replica.”

      A Google search for “BOK Tower Tulsa fire safety” reveals that the events of 9/11 have raised no concerns. Perhaps Clark can explain why it hasn’t been condemned on the grounds that this type of building has a 66% collapse rate due to ordinary office fires.

        • Clark

          “due to ordinary office fires”

          Half a wall gone and widespread fires started simultaneously across multiple floors is not remotely “ordinary”. When you need to warp the facts, that should tell you that there is something wrong with your theory.

      • John Goss

        They cannot condemn it Node because it is structurally sound, as were the twin towers and World Trade Centre 7. Now if someone told me it had been rigged for demolition it would raise my concern. Because that is the most likely the three structural-steel buildings were brought down – not by crank physics.

        • Clark

          And if someone told you that without the 10,000 shock absorbers it had attached to its floor trusses, all the occupants would have got seasick on windy days? Is that what you call “structurally sound”? I think Brunel would have been appalled.

          I’m surprised that Truthers haven’t suggested that the explosives were hidden in the dampers, which were ideally located – but then Truthers probably haven’t done enough research to have discovered the dampers at all.

      • John Goss

        A few people are frightened of spiders. This article even believes that planes flew into the twin towers, despite Pilots For 911 Truth obtaining FOI requests which show these planes were nowhere near the twin towers and still airborne after allegedly flying into the towers. Hmm.

      • Node

        Your link describes how the owners and occupants of the BOK Tower in Tulsa were fearful of a copycat “terrorist” attack on their building, but there is no mention of vulnerability to fire. If the architect had built only three buildings of this design and the other two had totally collapsed with huge loss of life due to office fires, shouldn’t the occupants of the last remaining one be concerned? Shouldn’t the local fire department, police chief, city planning, building standards, workers union, mayor, etc, etc, all be demanding closure or increased safety measures, if for no other reason than to cover their own arses in case it happens again?

        Seriously, how do you explain this apathy?

          • Clark

            From the article Kempe linked:

            The campaign’s members, survivors of Sept. 11 victims, charge that design flaws and cheap construction in the World Trade Center contributed to the enormous loss of life there.

            “To exempt [the authority] again just because they want to save money is ridiculous,” said Bruce DeCell of Great Kills yesterday.

            DeCell, a retired police officer whose son-in-law, Mark Petrocelli, 29, died in the collapse of the Twin Towers, said the use of sub-par fire retardants and shoddy stair construction rendered the buildings more vulnerable than they should have been.

            “The stairs should have been encased in cement but they were just built with Sheetrock,” he said. “When the planes hit, the Sheetrock just fell apart and blocked the stairwells.”

            These comments came from relatives of victims on 9/11. But the Truthers could argue that they’re secret agents helping to cover up demolition, or that they’re too scared to speak the “truth”, or maybe even that they “don’t want to cause an international incident”.

        • Clark

          Maybe people are sensible enough to realise that it’s no more likely to have an aircraft flown into it just because it looks like the Twin Towers. Or maybe they just need the money. One of the most dangerous jobs in a rich society is putting out road-cones, but people still do it.

  • Bobm

    With one of those wonderful freudian slips, David Anderson QC, UK’s Independent Reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, someone who presumably has access to the most top-secret intelligence available in the UK, just said on The World At One that he considers that we may have over-reacted to THE 9/11 BOMBINGS.

    • Paul Barbara

      I hadn’t seen the Bush one; unfortunately, it cannot be pinned down to the 9/11 attacks. Here’s the relevant part of the transcript:
      https://www.c-span.org/video/?194320-1/presidential-news-conference
      (beginning transcript at Β£.38 minutes in):
      George W. Bush

      The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.
      George W. Bush

      For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a highÒ€”a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. He gave us information that helped uncover Al Qaida cellsÒ€ℒ efforts to obtain biological weapons.
      George W. Bush

      WeÒ€ℒve also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa or American consulate in Pakistan or BritainÒ€ℒs Heathrow Airport. This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country. ItÒ€ℒs been invaluable to our country, and itÒ€ℒs invaluable to our allies.

      Still, interesting, but not a ‘smoking gun’.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Paul Barbara December 30, 2016 at 08:51
        @ Clark December 30, 2016 at 04:54
        You’ve had ample time to watch Barry Jenning’s fairly short interview, so you now know that the Twin Towers were both still standing when the stairwell blew apart as Jennings and Hess tried to leave; but you have just ignored the question, β€˜What caused the stairs to explode?’
        You will also have seen, if you watched the same short video, that Jenning’s says he walked over dead bodies in the lobby. What did they die of? Hypothermia? Heart attacks?

        You seem to have missed this one, Clark!!!

        • Paul Barbara

          And Clark, may I add, you’ve totally ignored John’s links from Pilots for 911 Truth that two of the ‘alleged’ highjacked Boeings were still flying AFTER alleged impacts – hmmm, I think I know why you haven’t responded to either of us.
          Rather difficult, if you are to maintain your ‘theories’.

          • Clark

            ” hmmm, I think I know why you haven’t responded to either of us.”

            Yes, you think I’m a fucking secret agent. And I think you’re a fool.

            I haven’t bothered to respond because there is no point arguing logically with Truthers. I’m not interested in propagandising. I got bored.

          • Clark

            Actually, Paul, it’s worse than that. Read my political comments. By calling people secret agents you’re actually damaging the cause. I’m giving up on the 9/11 thread soon because you lot are putting me off political activism with your insults. It’s far more important that I continue to oppose war and torture than it is to spend my time here banging my head against your brick wall.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 3, 2017 at 00:43
            – ” hmmm, I think I know why you haven’t responded to either of us.”

            Yes, you think I’m a fucking secret agent. And I think you’re a fool.

            I haven’t bothered to respond because there is no point arguing logically with Truthers. I’m not interested in propagandising. I got bored.’

            No, the reason I believe you didn’t respond to either my info about the staircase blowing up in WTC 7 before either Tower had started to collapse, or to John Goss’s info about EVIDENCE two of the so-called highjacked planes were still flying is because there is no answer, short of admitting your perceived scenario is wrong.
            I never said, nor implied, that you were a ‘secret agent’, fucking or not. The fact that you know Craig, and have assisted him, would make that highly unlikely. Craig is certainly no fool, but like most of us is blinkered in some respects.

            To reiterate the major questions, which you have (not so neatly) side-stepped – if two of the so-called ‘hijacked Boeing’s’ were provably still flying after allegedly crashing, how does that fit with either the government’s or your narratives, and if the staircase in WTC 7 blew up bbefore either building started to collapse, what caused it? And, of course, walking over dead bodies in the lobby (who obviously hadn’t been there when Jennings and Hess entered shortly before, nor had the devastation of the lobby.

            Yes, tricky ones, those questions. Far better to play the old Masonic ploy (no, I am NOT saying you’re a Mason) of ‘Diverting the discourse’.

          • Clark

            Paul, I’m not even going to bother looking at the page about two aircraft supposedly still flying. The Truthers lost my interest by presenting so much propaganda and bullshit. Everyone’s patience has limits.

            If that was your good evidence, you should have presented it first, not after months of nonsense about mains fusebox components, an art student who happens to have the same rather common name as a fake removals company, and hour after interminable hour of mined quotes and distortion on right-wing propaganda vids which are really targeting the likes of Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman. You should have weeded. You should have challenged “engineer” Goss who repeatedly maligned my ability and intelligence but never presents a quantitative, engineering argument. You should have challenged the flow of accusations of being a shill.

            You need to weed out the nonsense because if you have a case, the weeds you’re apparently cultivating are obscuring it utterly, and the accusations against anyone who challenges demolition are alienating those you hope to convince.

          • Clark

            Paul, think! Jennings had already given his interviews. Killing him couldn’t have made that testimony disappear; in fact, it would draw attention to it. Therefore, killing him would have been entirely counter-productive. And why blow up the stairs over seven hours before the main demolition, hours before the exclusion zone was enforced? Why not kill Jennings on 9/11 if he’d seen something he shouldn’t have? You seem not to see the holes in your own arguments, but they cause people like me to stop taking you seriously.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Clark January 4, 2017 at 01:04
            ‘Paul, think! Jennings had already given his interviews. Killing him couldn’t have made that testimony disappear; in fact, it would draw attention to it. Therefore, killing him would have been entirely counter-productive. And why blow up the stairs over seven hours before the main demolition, hours before the exclusion zone was enforced? Why not kill Jennings on 9/11 if he’d seen something he shouldn’t have? You seem not to see the holes in your own arguments, but they cause people like me to stop taking you seriously.’

            There you go again, deliberately missing the point. Barry Jennings’ testimony counters yours directly, re stairs exploding BEFORE either Tower collapse (therefore it couldn’t have been the falling debris that caused the explosion. So what do you do? You ask ME to explain why ‘they’ would blow up the stairs 7 hours before the main demolition. How the f*ck do I know? Ask ‘them’. Instead, YOU should admit Barry Jennings’ testimony runs counter to your idea of what happened.
            These are not ‘holes’ in my argument, they are just unpalatable truths which you cannot answer, so you go of at a tangent.
            Frankly, I couldn’t give a toss whether you continue to comment on here, or if you ignore my questions.
            Other posters can see that when cornered, you get the hump and go off in a huff, or else ‘Divert the discourse’ and ignore the salient points.
            The same goes for your lack of response to the evidence two of the four so-called ‘Hijacked Boeing’s were still flying after impacts.

          • Clark

            Paul, you say Jennings witnessed an explosion before either Tower collapsed. I need more than your assertion. As I remember Jennings’ interview, he says the stairs collapsed, but not that he was hit by blast or shrapnel. He was forced to go back up. Then, when he looked out of the window, the first of the Tower collapses had already happened.

            In the second part of his interview (assuming we’re referring to the same interview), in the Q&A session, he contradicts that by saying that neither Tower was down when he looked.

            Big deal. Vague and contradictory; no precise timing, no proof of pre-rigged charges, nothing worth killing him for.

      • Clark

        That’s Bush, attempting to justify the programme of forced confessions under torture. Note the bit about Heathrow airport, which probably prompted Blair to deploy tanks around it, and led to a young female environmental protester on a bicycle being locked up under the “anti-terrorism” laws.

  • Dave

    9/11 truth will only win the physical argument when it wins the political argument and becomes the mark of a patriot, difficult when the State/MSM is casting truth as treason, but easier when the State/MSM are viewed as liars. This helps explain Trump’s victory as the public rebel against establishment lies, without knowing the exact details. “Make America Great Again” is a call to public service and it’s patriotism, whether religious or secular, that gives people the courage to speak out, no wonder the CIA are getting desperate.

    • Node

      I agree with your general sentiment, as long as winning the political argument doesn’t refer to politics in the Western sense. The PTB would like nothing better than that the truth movement became a political party. They wouldn’t even need to infiltrate it, they’ve probably already formed a few proto-parties in anticipation.

      Somewhere up thread, Kempe said “The truth movement has to provide positive evidence for one theory and unite behind that theory if it is to move forward.” to which I replied “… the strength of the truth movement lies in its lack of structure – thousands of different groups and individuals exploring different approaches, and that is why the PTB are scared of it and try to encourage the belief that it has to unite behind one theory if it wants to move forward. Let me guess what you think we should call ourselves – the Truth Party? Yes? Aye, right.”

      The only good parties are ones like the 3-dayer I’m heading of for within the hour. See you all next year, have a good ‘un.

  • CrackSmokeRepublican

    Mr. Potter is correct.
    Judy Wood has excellent evidence yet her theories are still rooted in Newtonian/Quantum Theory.

    Keep in mind discoveries are happening even today that cannot be easily explained by modern physics.
    Static Electricity is one of these. WHAT are we actually and factually observing? It stand irreconclible with current theory. Dr. Shinbrot’s work, like that of Ken Shoulders, simply confounds.


    http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/05/static-electricity-defies-simple-explanation
    (Short-Range Electron Attractive Force, Ken Shoulders: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/ http://www.svn.net/krscfs/Short%20Range%20Electron%20Attractive%20Force.pdf )

    Unfortunately, the theory (classical) doesn’t work, report Heinrich Jaeger, a physicist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, and colleagues. They mixed grains of insulating zirconium dioxide-silicate with diameters of 251 micrometers and 326 micrometers and dropped them through a horizontal electric field, which pushed positively charged particles one way and negatively charged particles the other. They tracked tens of thousands of particlesβ€”by dropping an $85,000 high-speed camera alongside them. (See video above.) Sure enough, the smaller ones tended to be charged negatively and the larger ones positively, each accumulating 2 million charges on average.

    Then the researchers probed whether those charges could come from electrons already trapped on the grains’ surfaces. They gently heated fresh grains to liberate the trapped electrons and let them “relax” back into less energetic states. As an electron undergoes such a transition, it emits a photon. So by counting photons, the researchers could tally the trapped electrons. “It’s pretty amazing to me that they count every electron on a particle,” Shinbrot says.

    —-

    Now, I would point to one’s theories and corrections of classical theory that stands to explain this and Judy Wood’s evidence — Miles Mathis and his Charge Field. Mathis builds up photons with mechanical collisions to explain modern physics without QT. He has a Unified Theory that is consistent and logical.
    A good paper to start with that discusses “electron hopping”:
    Dielectric Polarization
    http://milesmathis.com/dielec.pdf
    The charge field has been weaponized. Mathis paints using deeper colors and design in his theories.

    Salt is not what we thought and neither is molecular bonding
    http://milesmathis.com/salt.pdf
    One of the co-authors, Alexander Goncharov, was good enough to admit it. He said, β€œWe discovered that the standard chemistry textbook rules broke down.” The main author, Weiwei Zhang, also admitted it. She put it this way: β€œWe found crazy compounds that violate textbook rules – NaCl3, NaCl7, Na3Cl2, Na2Cl, and Na3Cl. These compounds are thermodynamically stable and, once made, remain indefinitely; nothing will make them fall apart. Classical chemistry forbids their very existence.

    Electron Bonding is a myth
    Let me say it again: free electrons do not move from cations to stable atoms. That is strictly backwards. 20th century theorists have sold you a contradiction. They give the electron a minus sign and the cation a plus sign and the stable atom no sign, then tell youβ€”as the foundation of a theoryβ€” that this free electron moves to the stable atom. If you buy that you will buy anything, and you have.
    http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf

    Dr. Wood’s evidence is Damning – it can not be looked at and explained with classical theory. The “bathtub” not cracking from the collapse is just one clear example of this.
    Mathis’ Charge Field only confirms points Mr. Potter has outlined clearly. Mathis with Wood’s work together points to a “road not taken” for 9/11 Truth. Wood so far will always be limited in her proofs and explanatory power for accounting for the evidence and “energies” used on 9/11 while she does acknowledge areas that are beyond — with Mathis and his Charge Field (and new molecular structures) it is possible. Static Electricity is not what we thought and neither are the top secret weapons used on 9/11/2001.

    EVO’s and the Charge Field
    http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf
    KEN SHOULDERS RARE INTERVEIW WITH JOHN HUTCHISON
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st7fwv5Yogc

    Thank you Mr. Potter.
    –CrackSmokeRepublican (where’s iraq-war.ru when you need it… πŸ˜‰ )

    • John Goss

      Mr Potter I doubt I have ever come across such an inept salesman as yourself. πŸ˜€

      You’ve certainly put me off buying or even wanting to access a copy.

      • Node

        Yes John, I have weighed up the merits of having a dialogue about Dr Judy Woods versus being called a moron in special characters, and I have to agree with you.

        Pity. I’ve watched a couple of hour-long interviews with her and find her ideas interesting. I don’t discount them. However in order to assess their plausibility, I need to know more about the free energy technology which was supposedly used to bring down the towers. Yes, it’s very likely that the PTB have access to technology beyond what is publicly acknowledged but without further information we can only speculate. When I ask for more information on this key topic from someone who claims to know, I am TOLD IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that it will cost me $63.95 to find out. Pity.

        • Clark

          Consider yourself lucky. He could argue that unless you spend $63.95, you’re either a secret agent or too stupid to “grasp” Newton’s third law.

        • John Goss

          I probably watched the same videos Node. I too found them largely plausible but confess a lack of knowledge about technology nobody knows about. There is weapons’ technology kept out of the public domain. I think about the Russian jets that buzzed the USS Donald Cook and put out all its computers and sent it scurrying back to a Romanian port after it ‘strayed’ into Crimean (i.e. Russian) territorial waters.

        • John Goss

          Yes, if not Dr Judy Wood.

          Incidentally Dr Judy Wood’s expertise is in Mechanical Engineering. This article is very good and explains using conservation of momentum energy why the pancake theory is nonsense even without introducing any resistance.

          For those who prefer to play around with formulae for themselves the maths is given in Appendix A and B.

          http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

          As I said in an earlier comment I do not discount Judy Wood’s theory for the cloud-dusts and disintegration created during the fall. However more logical to my mind is the Khalezov explanation of a nuclear demolition which is in the real science sphere. It also would also account for the intense underground heat.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrgtN3A3UNY

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrgtN3A3UNY

          • Clark

            Case 2: β€˜Progressive Collapse’ in ten-floor intervals
            […]
            The clock starts when the blue ball is dropped from the roof (110th floor). Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor. When the red ball passes the 90th floor, the orange ball drops from the 90th floor, … etc. Notice that the red ball (at floor 100) cannot begin moving until the blue ball reaches that level, which is 2.8 seconds after the blue ball begins to drop.

            This approximates the “pancaking” theory, assuming that each floor within the “pancaking” (collapsing) interval provides no resistance at all. With this theory, no floor below the “pancake” can begin to move until the progressive collapse has reached that level. For example, there is no reason for the 20th floor to suddenly collapse before it is damaged.

            This is wrong. John, if you understand simple classical physics (or even just by common sense, really), you should be able to tell us why.

            Nikko, obviously, you should be able to see what’s wrong. So should Node, at a guess.

            Kempe, if you say anything I’ll consider it cheating, but if they don’t hurry up I’ll start giving them clues.

          • John Goss

            This is the Newtonian science in mathematical form from Judy Wood’s paper. I have been unable to find an academic challenge to it. There might be one. I doubt it. However I have stopped considering doughnut science since the doughnut scientists have never provided any answers to well-researched papers and cannot even acknowledge that FOI requests from Pilots for 911 Truth show that at least one of the planes that allegedly flew into the South Tower was still flying 20 minutes after it supposedly crashed, and was nowhere near the twin towers.

            “Appendix A: For those concerned about momentum.

            Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy

            Conservation of Momentum:

            The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object.

            p = mv

            where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity.

            If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.

            (m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

            where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.

            If (m1)i = 0, and (v2)i = 0, then (v2)f must =0.
            So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.

            ____________________________________

            If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

            (m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

            As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they “stick” together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

            (m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

            or vnew = (1/2) * v1

            If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.

            Conservation of Energy:

            In elastic collisions, the sum of kinetic energy before a collision must equal the sum of kinetic energy after the collision. Conservation of kinetic energy is given by the following formula:

            (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (1/2)(m1 * v21)f + (1/2)(m2 * v22)f + (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports)

            where (Pulverize) is the energy required to pulverize a floor and (Fail Floor Supports) is the energy required to fail the next floor.

            If (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports), there well be no momentum transfer.

            In reality, (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i < (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

            So, for conservation of energy, we must assume there is some additional energy such that,

            (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i + (Additional Energy) = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

            where (Additional Energy) is the additional amount of energy needed to have the outcome we observed on 9/11/01.

            Top

            Appendix B: Assuming elastic collisions:

            Assume that the top floor stays intact as a solid block weight, Block-A. Start the collapse timer when the 109th floor fails. At that instant, assume floor 108 miraculously turns to dust and disappears. So, Block-A can drop at free-fall speed until it reaches the 108th floor. After Block-A travels one floor, it now has momentum. If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving.

            (m1 * v1)i = (m2 * v2)f

            If Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C. In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses."

          • Clark

            John, the section I quoted is the description upon which two graphical representations are based; figure 5, showing a collapse time of about 31 seconds, and figure 6, showing a collapse time of about 97 seconds. But the description does not properly represent the physical system. Please point out why. We both accept Newton, conservation of momentum etc.; we should be able to agree about what is wrong with it.

          • Clark

            There’s no point going into more mathematical detail because the error is before the mathematical stage. The error is in how the motion of the floors has been represented before describing it mathematically.

          • Nikko

            The scenario in Case 2 (fig 5) is not very well explained. It considers that each of the 10 levels of collapse starts with zero velocity implying that the falling mass above has pulverized while transferring just enough energy to the section below to dislodge it from its supports without imparting any energy (velocity) to it. On this basis the collapse times are correctly calculated.

            The point of this (and the next) example is that since the real collapse time was clearly less than these times, pancaking and pulverization cannot happen due to gravity alone.

            The interesting example is Case 4, which demonstrates that sections below the collapse front need to start moving away from the collapse front before the collapse front reaches them in order for the whole building to collapse in the time that it did.

            This is how controlled demolitions work and they achieve it with timed explosives. Anybody who discounts the input of additional, man-made energy to tear the building apart ahead of the collapsing front needs to explain and quantify in proper scientific terms where this energy came from and how it was transformed into a useful and properly timed and delivered force. Nobody has come close to even starting making a sensible attempt.

          • Clark

            Nikko:

            “It considers that each of the 10 levels of collapse starts with zero velocity implying that the falling mass above has pulverized while transferring just enough energy to the section below to dislodge it from its supports without imparting any energy (velocity) to it”.

            Would not “assumes” be more appropriate than “considers”?

          • Nikko

            You are not clear which scenario you mean and what falling material you are referring to. Why not try and work it out for yourself

          • Clark

            Material that was falling, before and after impact (with the assumed pulverisation); what happens to its momentum?

          • Clark

            …and Nikko, I have worked it out for myself. I’m merely giving you and others the chance to demonstrate your ability and honesty. That’s also why I asked Kempe to keep quiet for a while. None of the demolition theorists are doing very well so far. I could have seen through these arguments when I was fourteen.

          • Nikko

            Clark, I am pleased to hear you have worked it out yourself – so far you have not said much that makes sense within the context of the known laws of physics.

            If you are on to something not known to lesser mortals then I suggest you contact the Nobel committee in Stockholm – in the meanwhile I see no point in wasting time answering unclear questions concerning a scenario which could not have happened.

          • Clark

            Nikko, at 11:24 you attempted to use Judy Wood’s frankly fictional argument to bolster theories of demolition of the twin Towers. Increasingly, I am doubting your honesty, as you do seem to have some ability in physics.

          • Nikko

            Yes, Case 2 is a fictional argument proving that that scenario did not happen. Are you saying that it did happen and, against all evidence, that the collapse time was 30 s? You have completely lost me.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I have nothing of interest for the Nobel committee in Stockholm, because I am satisfied by the null hypothesis. YOU are the one who should try your luck with them, since you claim that collapse of the Twin Towers was impossible without explosives.

          • Kempe

            Mr Goss; your cut and pasted maths only works if the velocities in your equations are constant. They are not as the falling mass is constantly accelerating under gravity. Potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy.

          • Clark

            You don’t need to look as far as the maths; the model itself ignores conservation of momentum, before even representing it mathematically. Each floor assembly newly decoupled from its uprights is assumed to begin accelerating under gravity from rest, NOT from the initial velocity that would be imparted to it by the impacting material.

            The clue is in the description; “Just as the blue ball passes the 100th floor, the red ball drops from the 100th floor” etc., and in the initial horizontal gradient of each parabola in the graph. Well falling floor material didn’t and couldn’t “pass” stationary floor assemblies; they collided violently.

            There’s absolutely no point doing any maths if the representation of the physical system is wrong to begin with.

            Engineer Goss should have spotted this because he’s been playing with a Newton’s Cradle, and repeatedly accuses me of ignorance of Newton’s laws; YCNMIU. Nikko seems good enough that s/he presumably did spot it, but chose to keep quiet about it.

          • Clark

            Nikko, 11:24:

            “The interesting example is Case 4…”

            Yes, what the hell is “Case 4”? The graph (figure 7) shows “balls” from different floors undergoing different accelerations due to gravity! Was each floor of the building on its own planet? Just how incompetent is Dr Wood, and how come Nikko didn’t point out this glaring error?

          • Nikko

            If anybody is incompetent it is you Clark!

            All the depicted floors are subject to exactly the same acceleration, i.e. they drop 10 floors in 2.8 seconds, which happens to correspond to 9.8 m/s2. So to answer you question they are all on planet earth.

          • Clark

            Nikko, my apology. Yes, the starting points move progressively to the right along the time axis.

            Wow! You found something she got right! She worked backwards from her conclusion correctly. Er, you’re not meant to do that, are you?

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports β€” Part 4 of 5’:
    Fictitious Debris Damage:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/320-news-media-events-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-4.html

    ‘I first noticed the conundrum that suggested that the β€œ10-story gouge” in the side of WTC 7 could not have actually existed back on September 6, 2006, while I was β€œdebating” with Ryan Mackey in an online forum: See Conundrum in June 2004 Progress Report.

    NIST’s first report, published two years earlier, referred to the β€œmiddle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground.” It then went on to read: β€œNo heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.” β€” NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907] See June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5).

    Obviously, debris large enough to create a 10-story gouge, one-fourth to one-third the width of the building, would have landed in the first floor lobby, along with everything it brought down, including the third-floor lobby…….’

    ‘…Also, 9/11 researcher Winston Smith found another statement that conflicted with NIST’s 10-story gouge theory in the report on WTC 7 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Chapter 5 on page 20. It read: β€œAccording to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.” See Federal Emergency Management Agency, Chapter 5, WTC 7.

    Later I found still two more quotes that were in conflict with NIST’s theory of the 10-story gouge.

    The first quote came from FDNY Chief Frank Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesey streets. Referring to β€œbuilding number seven, which had taken a big hit from the tower,” Fellini said: β€œWhen it fell it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street.” See World Trade Center Task Force Interviewβ€”Chief Frank Felliniβ€”Interview Date: December 3, 2001.

    The second quote was an obfuscated comment buried in NIST’s Progress Report. Only after careful reading does it become clear what NIST meant in referring to β€œdebris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to the 5th floor*), noted that the atrium glass was still intact.” β€” NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L, page 18 [PDF page 907]

    *The atrium, not the damage, extended from the ground floor to the fifth floor. Thus, the β€œ10-story gouge” should have taken out much of the atrium glass; but it didn’t, according to this NIST report. See The Evidence for the β€œ10-Story Gouge.”……’

    • John Goss

      I think we must be subscribing to the same source Paul since the above arrived in my inbox this morning. πŸ™‚ Thanks for posting.

  • John Goss

    Assuming aluminium cut create a huge aircraft sized hole in one face and emerge on a tangential face of one of the twin towers cutting through that too (ha, ha) the weakness is going to be on that corner where the alleged aircraft damage took place. If it could possibly damage the building enough to cause structural failure leading to collapse it would fall towards that damaged corner and topple. That is logical. Believe it or not that is almost what happened. After the toppling part had started its fall instead of following the path of least resistance, the way it was falling, it suddenly changed its direction of fall.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/

    I do not need to explain further because the above blogger has done it for me. But just to be sure that the South Tower started falling outward before it was brought back in by explosives you can watch it for yourself in this compilation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

    • Kempe

      It would only topple if the upper section of the building tilted so much that its centre of gravity moved beyond the outer wall. this was never going to happen because the supporting columns on the side away from the damage would fail through buckling long before.

      • Clark

        …and also, the top sections fell as they tipped, bringing them into contact with and undergo forces from the core and perimeter of the still standing sections. This video:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I1UMuBWRE

        …shows the top section of WTC2 forcing out a lower section of perimeter; a massive transfer of angular momentum from the top section – incidentally also answering Nikko’s favourite mantra of “what supplied the energy for lateral ejection of perimeter sections?”

        Kempe’s argument is a summary of Appendix II from Bazant and Zhou 2001, which I accept to be valid.

      • Nikko

        No, to start toppling the cg needs to move only beyond the centre of the support system. That is what has clearly happened and there is no reason why it could not have continued had man-made forces not intervened

        • Clark

          “…and there is no reason why it could not have continued…”

          …apart from the enormous reaction forces from the structure beneath being crushed.

          This really is the most whimsical concept; that some real-time finessing of millisecond timing of thousands of individually triggerable charges was somehow used to (silently) “correct” the tipping of the top section of WTC2. Why even bother? Had redundant shaped charges been rigged in all vectors to cover every eventuality? Such stuff is beyond the realms of fantasy.

          • Nikko

            – β€œβ€¦and there is no reason why it could not have continued…”

            …apart from the enormous reaction forces from the structure beneath being crushed.

            It needs a complete detachment from reality to envisage how the falling structure below could have exerted any force to stop the rotation

          • Clark

            No, the structure beneath had been supporting the structure above, before the geometry was lost – and the lower uprights were more substantial that those of the falling section. Obviously the standing structure had to be sufficiently substantial to affect the speed and direction of the fall of that above.

  • John Goss

    I see the incredible figure of 5,000 comments has been reached on this thread. Somewhere in that number there must be truth of one sort or another.

    • Clark

      Part of the reason I have posted so many comments has been my attempt to address the large quantities of untruth posted by “Truthers”.

    • Node

      Why do you say “5000 comments”? I’ve just counted 251 comments on page 100, ie < 25,000 on the first 100 pages.

      Truth x 5?

      • Clark

        Bullshit x5? A Truther demonstrating lack of care when extrapolating, ie. business as usual.

        The number of comments is displayed immediately below the “Post Comment” button.

        • Clark

          Node, you’re one of the ones who at least insinuated that I was playing fast and loose with Newton’s laws. Got anything to say about Judy Wood, “engineer” Goss and Squirming Nikko?

          Vronsky? You watching your dishonest colleagues?

        • Node

          The number of comments is displayed immediately below the β€œPost Comment” button.

          Oh, yes, thanks for pointing that out. There must be many fewer comments on the early pages.

          • Clark

            It’s caused by the nesting or threading of comments. I haven’t checked, but I think that there are a set number of top-level comments per page, but any number of comments may subtend from them. But threading was only enabled relatively recently; pages from before then have only top-level comments.

            When threading was enabled, the number of comments-per-page was also reduced. This changed the page numbers that existing comments appeared on, breaking links to comments posted before the change. This led engineer Goss to become convinced that a comment or two of his were so threatening to the alleged 9/11 Conspiracy that they had been deleted, either by the site team or by some sort of interference. Even when I located the missing material, he found the reality hard to accept.

    • Node

      Got anything to say about Judy Wood, β€œengineer” Goss and Squirming Nikko?

      No, I’ve no wish to interact with you when you are being so unpleasant.

  • Clark

    Murphy’s Law Complete (Bloch , ISBN 0-7493-0146-5) pg. 98:

    White’s Chappaquidick Theorem:

    The sooner and in more detail you announce the bad news, the better.

  • Thomas Potter

    Look back to the August 2, 2006, β€œGuns and Butter” show with Dr. Steven Jones. Dr. Jones bragged how clever the perpetrators were to NOT use explosives because explosives leave tags and can be traced to who bought it @ 29:17. Also, Dr. Jones actually did say that you can buy thermite on ebay @ 23:59, so (sigh), I guess we’ll never know who did this. (Move along. Nothing to see here…) This Guns&Butter show was produced just one week before Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood published their first article showing what Dr. Jones should be looking at but isn’t and that thermite, thermate, or super-duper thermite could not have done this. After that, Dr. Reynolds posted the first DEW article with Dr. Wood saying that thermite could not have done this.* After that, Dr. Jones began saying that β€œit wasn’t just thermite.” In response, Dr. Wood wrote something like, β€œIt was bubble gum plus something else.” I had a good laugh when Dr. Jones contradicted himself @ 49:10 because the ONLY person to have collected, reviewed, and considered ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS DR. WOOD!

    So, if all explosives leave tags, and the bad guys used cutter charges as Dr. Jones says @ 50:30, then why didn’t Dr. Jones find them in his dust baggie? And why didn’t he submit any of his evidence to NIST?

    https://archives.kpfa.org/data/20060802-Wed1300.mp3

    BTW- Listening to Dr. Jones bears a resemblance to a grade school teacher reading a fairy tale. Thermite produces a blinding light. Why didn’t the WTC towers light up like Christmas trees???

    *At the time this article was being developed, many people expressed disbelief that energy weapons existed outside of science fiction until they were reminded of the Star Wars Program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)*. The name of this article was chosen as a reminder that energy weapons do exist and have been developed over 100 years. Most of this technology is classified information. It can also be assumed that such technology exists in multiple countries. The purpose of this article was to begin to identify the evidence of what happened on 9/11/01 that must be accounted for. In doing so, the evidence ruled out a Kinetic Energy Device (bombs, missiles, etc.) as the method of destruction as well as a gravity-driven “collapse.”

    https://www.scribd.com/document/166443452/Strahlenfolter-DeW-Drjudywood-com-The-Star-Wars-Beam-Weapons-Star-Wars-Directed-Energy-Weapons-6-Other

    • Clark

      Ms Wood may hope to sell her book to fools, but her “physics” is either incompetent or dishonest. Mr Potter, are you in a position to tell me which?

      • Thomas Potter

        You don’t have to buy it. Poor people can acquire a copy through a library. Ad hominem attacks directed to those who have read Dr. Wood’s overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable evidence does not make it go away. How sad that you are not interested in the truth. οΌˆοΈΆοΈΏοΈΆοΌ‰

        “When an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.” – Amicus Solo (Latin for “a lone friend”)

        • Clark

          Mr Potter, I assessed one of Ms Wood’s physics articles myself, and found it to be either incompetent or dishonest. That is my assessment of the argument, not of Ms Wood as a person. There is no need to misrepresent my position.

        • John Goss

          Have you thought about applying the philosophy you keep quoting to yourself? It’s a good quote.

          β€œWhen an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.”

          However twice I asked you about the superheated cauldron beneath each of the three towers that fell on 11th September 2001. On the third time of asking I was told that you do not spoon-feed people. You persisted with your fundamentalist acceptance of Judy Wood’s Bible and told me there were no intense heat sources. That was despite the fact that I provided you with this link to dozens of reports. Either you must cease to be mistaken or cease to have creedibility.

          http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

        • John Goss

          Have you thought about applying the philosophy you keep quoting to yourself? It’s a good quote.

          β€œWhen an honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest.”

          However twice I asked you about the superheated cauldron beneath each of the three towers that fell on 11th September 2001. On the third time of asking I was told that you do not spoon-feed people. You persisted with your fundamentalist acceptance of Judy Wood’s Bible and told me there were no intense heat sources. That was despite the fact that I provided you with this link to dozens of reports. Either you must cease to be mistaken or cease to have credibility.

          http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

    • Kempe

      Dr wood has made some very fundamental, possibly deliberate, mistakes. Using seismic data collected by Columbia University Dr Wood concluded that both towers collapsed within 10 seconds and therefore fell at free fall. However, this is contradicted by the many videos of the collapse which Dr. Wood ignores because the β€œcollapse is hidden in the immense dust clouds” but they all show debris detached from the towers falling below the collapse front. If indeed the towers did collapse at free fall, then the collapse front should be at the same point as the free falling debris. Unbelievably, Dr. Wood even has a quote on the same page from NIST that practically spells this out for her, β€œNIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC2”.

      She also makes an embarrassing mistake when it comes to interpreting the seismic data. She clearly believes that the large signal collected by Columbia University, that lasts for 10 and 8 seconds for WTC 1 and WTC 2 respectively, corresponds to the total collapse time of the towers – when they in fact correspond to rubble hitting the ground. For example, the North Tower started to collapse at 10:28:23Β±1 but Dr. Wood misinterprets the peak at 10:28:31Β±1 as the start time. We then see the largest signal at 10:28:36Β±1 – when the heaviest rubble hits the ground until 10:28:39Β±1 by which time the majority of the debris has fallen. This is where she gets 8 seconds from and it would take very little effort to look at the raw data and discover this mistake.

      Furthermore if the DEW were fired from above then the very top floors should’ve been disintegrated first, not those at the point of impact. If directed from the side then the pulverisation would’ve stopped when the weapon’s line of sight to the WTC became blocked by the surrounding buildings.

      • John Goss

        “Using seismic data collected by Columbia University Dr Wood concluded that both towers collapsed within 10 seconds and therefore fell at free fall.”

        Not quite true Kempe. She was working with data available at the time from NIST.

        “The August Fact Sheet (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions) by NIST states, “NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.” (Question #6.)”

        • John Goss

          To be honest it matters not whether it was 9 or even 15 seconds, using Newtonian physics it would have taken a lot longer for the towers to fall without explosives and that is without any resistance. But you guys have such a weird perception of mechanics I doubt it will ever dawn on you. πŸ˜€ You do not bring steel-structured buildings down from above. It cannot work when the undamaged part of the building below has perpendicular design strength. It just cannot happen. Wake up. Wake up. It’s only a dream Alice.

          • Clark

            John Goss, YOU posted Wood’s article without criticism, and then proceed to attempt to defend it. Have you no shame?

      • John Goss

        “This is where she gets 8 seconds from and it would take very little effort to look at the raw data and discover this mistake.”

        Seismology is an expert science and all kinds of variables enter into the equation. When exactly the underground nuclear explosions took place is one that really should be left to the experts. Dr Andre Rousseau is one.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7EBTAGA1M

      • Thomas Potter

        Kempe- Could you please denote which Chapter, section, and page numbers of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? you are referring to in your critique? ✎

        • John Goss

          That’s not right, Mr Potter. Kempe is clearly referring to Dr Wood’s paper on her billiard ball analysis of Newton if you have been following the thread.

          • Thomas Potter

            Mr. Goss- I regret to inform you that it is you and Mr. Kempe who are not right. It is not right to critique the work of a scientist without reading the scientists complete report with ALL supporting evidence. But since I have read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? and have a copy always at hand, I can tell you exactly where Dr. Wood covers this subject.
            It is Chapter 2, pages 9 to 24. How sad no one here is interested in the truth. οΌˆοΈΆοΈΏοΈΆοΌ‰ Dr. Wood is my Super Hero.

            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€
            β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€

          • John Goss

            Dr. Wood is my Super Hero.

            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€
            β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β–€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–„β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€
            β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β–€β–ˆβ–€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€

            Really? I would never have guessed.

      • Nikko

        In the Billiards Ball article Wood does not establish a collapse time, so if you are quoting her correctly then it must be from somewhere else.

        Kempe: β€œβ€¦β€¦β€ but they all show debris detached from the towers falling below the collapse front. If indeed the towers did collapse at free fall, then the collapse front should be at the same point as the free falling debris.”
        Not necessarily as it all depends when the various parts started to fall. Look at this video at 08 seconds

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU

        The large chunk of outer walling you can see to the left has been falling for 2 or 3 seconds while the building is still standing intact. You can follow the arcing smoke trail upwards to see that this chunk of metal (as well as all the others) came from the level where the initial explosion took place; an undeniable source of massive lateral energy.

        I am not familiar with Wood’s but from the discussion here I gather that her explanation is based on some man-made β€œdirected energy” system or weapon. That is not my area of expertise so can’t comment but I can accept the existence of such an energy source more readily than the Believers’ natural force working perpendicularly to gravity and not observed before or since 9/11.

        • Clark

          Set the video to full-screen, watch the top of the building and pause as soon as you see movement of the antenna or roof-line. You will find the time reading about four seconds. Unpause; the ejections of fire and smoke follow immediately after – therefore the ejections were caused BY the collapse, and was not an explosion causing the collapse.

          The damaged zone was on fire (obviously), and that is where the structure failed. The upper section collapsed the space at the damaged floor levels, ejecting the flames, smoke and hot gasses there – they had to go somewhere.

          Also watch the perimeter section Nikko described. It has hardly any lateral velocity away from the building.

          Also listen. The collapse of the building produces a growing roar, proving that events at the building were audible from the camera position. However, no initial explosive sounds are heard, even allowing for speed-of-sound delay.

          • Nikko

            If you watch the video carefully you will find that the explosion starts at 03 s and by 04s the antenna has started to lean and the collapse is underway. My interpretation is that the explosion preceded the collapse.

            As regards the noise all I hear is something like the sound of a helicopter – the same sound before and during the collapse.

            As I keep asking you, if your interpretation is the correct one, then you need to explain where the massive lateral energies to tear the building apart came from, particularly at the start of the collapse. We have already established that the energy available due to the difference between freefall and actual collapse is pitifully tiny – of the order of 100s of grams of TNT equivalent in the early stages.

          • Clark

            Nikko, I am bored with your mantra of “massive energies, tearing the building apart laterally”. Watch the collapse videos; the overwhelmingly dominant motion is clearly from top to bottom. There is some spread of material, naturally, but such spread is to be expected given the great height at which destruction begins. Do you hope, by power of suggestion, that people may see something which is not shown? We calculated some energies above:

            https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post/comment-page-102/#comment-646653

            The descent of the top section through just one storey, in the more conservative case of WTC1, releases gravitational potential energy equivalent to hundreds of kilos of TNT. Considering the entire height, that translates to many tonnes. The addition of any reasonable quantity of actual explosive would be trivially irrelevant in terms of available energy.

            On an earlier page, someone (maybe you?) linked to a compilation of videos of controlled demolitions. In every case, visual evidence of demolition charges was clearly visible noticeably before any movement of collapse could be detected. The video you’re referring to here is a long-distance shot of WTC1, and the time of onset of collapse is difficult to pinpoint, the initial motion being the slowest, of course. Other, clearer views confirm that collapse preceded ejection of fiery gasses. It was inevitable that the flaming gasses be ejected as the burning zone collapsed, so your theory of explosives (somehow guaranteed not to pre-ignite in an inferno for over an hour) would inevitably produce two ejections of distinctly different characters, yet we see only one, and that one looks entirely like billowing orange flames rather than the brief, white flashes of demolition charges. Again, do you think me so weak minded that repeated suggestion might warp my perception? I am not your sheeple, Nikko, nor anyone else’s, and I have seen the photographs and videos of inward bowing and rapid inward buckling that very clearly DID precede collapse.

            The visual evidence overwhelmingly indicates structural failure initiating progressive collapse, and there was a surfeit of gravitational potential energy available for the ensuing destruction, completely dwarfing any reasonable quantity of explosives. Please stop treating readers as foolishly vulnerable to repetition and suggestion.

          • Nikko

            If you are bored by being asked the same question then all you need to do is provide a convincing answer. There is no doubt that the building was torn apart and pulverized (to a degree) which could not have been achieved by gravity alone. So far, all you have provided is unscientific woffle.

          • Clark

            Nonsense. The gravitational potential energy of each Twin Tower was immense. I guestimated it above; just one floor slab falling through a single storey releases energy equivalent to around ten kilo of TNT. 110 stories – plus contents, ancillary equipment, load bearing structure etc – falling through on average 55 stories, would have to release well over 600 times that energy – equivalent to over SIXTY TONNES OF TNT – and that’s a very conservative estimate. You’re saying that each Tower needed to be rigged with a quantity of explosive that exceeded sixty tonnes by a significant factor?

          • Nikko

            No wonder you are bored as you keep churning out the same incorrect nonsense. I pointed out before that the kinetic energy which you calculated for the floor slab would not have been available to do any work while it was falling. Your reasoning is wrong.

          • Clark

            As they say, “gravity never hurt anyone; it was when they stopped…”. Note that release of dust occurred as the collapses were arrested by the ground.

            There is only one way to be right, versus an infinite number of ways to be wrong – rather like the thermodynamic principle that entropy increases – and some of those wrong’uns are bound to be superficially convincing.

            I’m glad you’ve proven that snooker is a hoax, and that all the coloured balls have been secretly rigged with explosives.

        • John Goss

          “That is not my area of expertise so can’t comment but I can accept the existence of such an energy source more readily than the Believers’ natural force working perpendicularly to gravity and not observed before or since 9/11.”

          Not been observed before or since 9/11 because it could not happen. I agree that there is a lot of waffle about one floor pushing through another floor without meeting any resistance. These people have no understanding of physics in practice. It is not worth wasting your intellect on them. The only way the twin towers and building 7 could have fallen like they did is a controlled demolition and removal of the lower support structure. This is how buildings fall when they tip, as the south tower started to do.

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

          Also there is a lesson to learn from the amount of rubble from the above relatively small block.

          • Clark

            “…waffle”

            Ad-hominen.

            “…about one floor pushing through another floor without meeting any resistance”

            Misrepresentation. Quantifying such resistance is what the calculations are about.

            “These people have no understanding of physics in practice.”

            Ad-hominen, and psychological projection, since “engineer” Goss never presents any quantitative, physical reasoning whatsoever.

            “It is not worth wasting your intellect on them”

            Vicious ad-hominen.

            “The only way the twin towers and building 7 could have fallen like they did is a controlled demolition and removal of the lower support structure”

            Pure assertion devoid of any physical reasoning, Goss apparently being incapable of the latter.

  • Clark

    Kempe, if you’ve been keeping quiet at my request, thanks. I think the demolition theorists have shown that intellectual honesty is not a currency they wish to trade with.

1 100 101 102 103 104 134

Comments are closed.